PDA

View Full Version : Veil related posts and threads combined



S_87
10-07-2006, 10:24 AM
:sl:

Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils which cover the face.
The Commons leader said he did not want to be "prescriptive" but he believed that covering people's faces could make community relations more difficult.

Mr Straw has said he asks Muslim women at his Blackburn constituency surgeries if they would mind removing veils.

Some Muslim women called his remarks insulting, but other Muslims said they understood his concerns.

Mr Straw has dismissed suggestions that his remarks are designed to raise his profile ahead of Labour's deputy leadership election.

He has yet to confirm whether he will join the race to succeed John Prescott but is widely expected to do so.

Meeting strangers

Mr Straw is Labour MP for Blackburn, where between 25% and 30% of residents are Muslim.

He sparked controversy when he told his local paper he asked female constituents visiting his surgery if they would uncover their faces.

He said he made sure he had a female colleague in the room when asking someone to show their mouth and nose - and his constituents had so far always agreed to do so.

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme if he would rather the veils be discarded completely, Mr Straw replied: "Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather."


Mr Straw explained the impact he thought veils could have in a society where watching facial expressions was important for contact between different people.

"Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers - people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day," he said.

"That's made more difficult if people are wearing a veil. That's just a fact of life.

"I understand the concerns but I hope, however, there can be a mature debate about this.

"I come to this out of a profound commitment to equal rights for Muslim communities and an equal concern about adverse development about parallel communities."

'Separateness' fears

Mr Straw stressed it was a choice for women and he was making a request and not a demand.

"What I've been struck by when I've been talking to some of the ladies concerned is that they had not, I think, been fully aware of the potential in terms of community relations," he said.

"I mean, they'd thought of it just as a statement for themselves, in some cases they regard themselves as very religious - and I respect that - but as I say, I just wanted to put this issue on the table."

He said he was worried the "implications of separateness" and the development of "parallel communities".

Tony Blair's official spokesman said the prime minister "believes that it is right that people should be able to have a discussion and express their personal views on issues such as this".

The spokesman said Mr Straw's comments were not government policy and he refused to reveal Mr Blair's views on the issue.

'Dangerous doctrine'

Mr Straw's comments have provoked a mixed response from Muslim groups.

The Islamic Human Rights Commission called Mr Straw's views "astonishing" and accused him of discrimination.

The Protect-Hijab organisation said the "appalling" comments showed "a deep lack of understanding".

But Dr Daud Abdullah, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said he could understand Mr Straw's discomfort adding that women could choose to remove the veil.

Labour's Baroness Uddin said debate was needed but perhaps not in the way Mr Straw had framed it.

She was worried he had talked about veils being a statement of separation - that acknowledged the government's failure to ensure Muslim women were "part and parcel" of British society, she argued.

Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said it would be "dangerous doctrine" to tell people how to dress.

And Liberal Democrat president Simon Hughes: "The experience of visiting their MP is difficult enough for many people without having to consider a dress code."



source
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
S_87
10-07-2006, 11:04 AM
:sl:

i think straw is a class a muppet as well as zionist with a hidden agenda. i HOPE those muslims who were keen on voting him in before sees some sense!
Reply

Snowflake
10-07-2006, 11:12 AM
I'd like to ask him how removing the veil will improve community relations?

The yobs who don't have an islamic bone in their body & are terrorising innocent people on the streets, wasting police & court time are really helping community relations aren't they! :rant:

Next it'll be removing all types of Islamic identity clothing and perhaps even beards.. :raging:
Reply

KAding
10-07-2006, 12:40 PM
Originally Posted by Straw
Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me and I agree with this comment. Do I support the principle behind the veil: no. Do I think it's nevertheless a personal choice: sure. I really don't understand why people are so upset about this, surely they didn't expect many Westerners would agree with the idea behind wearing a veil, right?

I think he is simply being honest.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Muezzin
10-07-2006, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
It seems perfectly reasonable to me and I agree with this comment. Do I support the principle behind the veil: no. Do I think it's nevertheless a personal choice: sure. I really don't understand why people are so upset about this, surely they didn't expect many Westerners would agree with the idea behind wearing a veil, right?

I think he is simply being honest.
The funny thing is, you don't hear any of the ladies who were asked by him to remove the veil complaining. It seems to be Mr Straw who is making an issue out of things and 'getting upset'.
Reply

Bittersteel
10-07-2006, 12:52 PM
It seems to be Mr Straw who is making an issue out of things and 'getting upset'.
sexual frustration of some sort?
Reply

- Qatada -
10-07-2006, 12:55 PM
:salamext:

Originally Posted by straw
Cabinet Minister Jack Straw has said he would prefer Muslim women not to wear veils which cover the face.

And...? since when did he decide what our sister's wear? subhan Allaah.
Reply

InToTheRain
10-07-2006, 12:55 PM
Well as long as it remains an opinion I guess not much harm is done, Its odd that he speaks about how uncomfortable certain people amongst a group that supports him make him.

He has dawn attention to the veil, I heard yesterday idiots were snatching the head scarf of sisters and doing a runner.

I personally find it uncomfortable some people don't wear the veil, Condoleeza Rice for example...BUt DOES ANYONE CARE ABOUT WHAT HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE OF ATTIRE EH? :rant:
Reply

united
10-07-2006, 01:00 PM
I dont know what his reasons were but it definately means that sisters will get more abuse. Its not just physical abuse, verbal abuse hurts aswell.
Reply

DaNgErOuS MiNdS
10-07-2006, 01:13 PM
I think the media blew it out of proportion if you ask me, they just want to highlight the veil rather then what Straw said. It's just another potryal by the media about how Muslims are and how they don't follow society...

The Pope's comments didn't quite get the riots going and the Muslims didn't react so maybe this story might trigger something.
Reply

S_87
10-07-2006, 01:14 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
It seems perfectly reasonable to me and I agree with this comment. Do I support the principle behind the veil: no. Do I think it's nevertheless a personal choice: sure. I really don't understand why people are so upset about this, surely they didn't expect many Westerners would agree with the idea behind wearing a veil, right?

I think he is simply being honest.
but whats it to him? why should they agree or disagree? its none of their business ...
Reply

amirah_87
10-07-2006, 01:43 PM
As salaamu aalykum,

Ya Ilaahiy this makes me soo mad!! :grumbling

but he believed that covering people's faces could make community relations more difficult.
More Difficult :? SubhanAllah... Does'nt he find being in a room with a kaafir women who's half naked diffcult!! :heated: :heated:
Reply

DaNgErOuS MiNdS
10-07-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally Posted by amirah_87



More Difficult :? SubhanAllah... Does'nt he find being in a room with a kaafir women who's half naked diffcult!! :heated: :heated:
I would feel alot more uncomfortable talking with someone of the opposite gender half naked then someone with a veil.
Reply

- Qatada -
10-07-2006, 02:04 PM
:salamext:


They just doing it so this topic get's controversial within the public. And by starting a small spark, they exaggerate it in the media, which lead's to aggression against the muslim's - due to the non muslim's igorance.


We should know that this would happen anyway, because this is one of the reason's the jew's were expelled from Medinah at the time of Rasulullah sal Allaahu alayhi waSalam.

They tried to remove a muslim woman's veil and her awrah was shown due to that - so immediately the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) layed siege to their properties.



We should stay firm, patient and put our trust in Allaah Almighty in situation's like these, otherwise - they'll make us give up our islaam gradually.

Remember that the Makkan's allowed the muslim's to pray at home too, they just don't like the fact that we follow islaam as a way of life.


Allaah Almighty knows best.
Reply

*Hana*
10-07-2006, 02:24 PM
Salam Alaikum:

These comments just show his ignorance and if we remain calm and steadfast in our want to worship Allah, swt, by wearing the veil, the situation will disappear.

I just wonder if a female visitor dressed in a mini skirt and belly shirt is asked to cover when visiting his office. :?

wasalam,
Hana
Reply

Mohsin
10-07-2006, 02:31 PM
I haven't quite followed this story 100%. is he asking for muslims women to never ever wear the niqaab, even on streets, or does he want it banned in schools and work places only?

To me I just can't believe what i am hearing from the british Public on nessnight reviews and question time, radio phone ins, and polls etc. They are all against it, but here i was thinking this country stoof for the rights of religious freedom? If people are so free to practise what they wish then why is this even an issue?
Reply

*Hana*
10-07-2006, 02:53 PM
Salam Alaikum:

No, he's not asking them to remove them permanently. Basically, he's saying when they come to his office to visit and discuss things they should remove them because he feels it's difficult to speak them when he can't see their faces, and some other stuff about it causing seperation in community. :rollseyes

However, I wonder how he is able to talk on the phone when he can't even see a whole person.....must be extremely difficult for Mr. Straw to function normally in today's world. :giggling:

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

S_87
10-07-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Salam Alaikum:



However, I wonder how he is able to talk on the phone when he can't even see a whole person.....must be extremely difficult for Mr. Straw to function normally in today's world. :giggling:

Wasalam,
Hana
:sl:

:giggling: tell me about it! he should go back a few centuries :lol:
Reply

The Ruler
10-07-2006, 03:12 PM
:sl:

i watched the news and this lady goes " i think women should be allowed to wear whatever they want to" and i wasthinking...we are wearing what we want to....because if islam FORCED women to wear it then we wouldnt see muslim girls going around without a headscarf....it is obligatory...yes but nowadays it seems more of the girl's choice than something that is forced upon her.

:w:
Reply

InToTheRain
10-07-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Salam Alaikum:
I wonder how he is able to talk on the phone when he can't even see a whole person.....must be extremely difficult for Mr. Straw to function normally in today's world. :giggling:

Wasalam,
Hana
indeed.

And it is so selfish and inconsiderate to tell others ways to make him comfortable at their expense. **** the hypocrit.
Reply

The Ruler
10-07-2006, 03:21 PM
:sl:

hmm....so if i go 'yo its very important ta c ur body language too so remove ur clothing' wil he do it :? :vomit:

:w:
Reply

*Hana*
10-07-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah
indeed.

And it is so selfish and inconsiderate to tell others ways to make him comfortable at their expense. **** the hypocrit.
Salam Alaikum:

Exactly brother! He never gave a one second thought to how uncomfortable this request would be for the sisters. And he referred to community seperation....his comments are enough to do that. Thoughtless words give people the lame excuse to be critical of those that choose to practice a faith that may be different from their own.

There's already been an incident of an older gentleman pulling the hijab of a Muslimah in that area while she was walking down the street. As they say, "Words are like weapons", and can do far more damage than many realize. Without even thinking, look at the controversy he caused in one small area?

But, this is where our Muslim brothers and sisters must stand strong and respond in a calm and respectful manner to educate those who are ignorant of our beliefs so we can make them understand that this is ordained for us and is an act of worship. No different than a nun who wears the habit as a way of worship.

Inshallah, they will learn what Muslims already know...education breeds tolerance and unity. This is the message we have to put forth and not react with violence and bad manners.

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

Keltoi
10-07-2006, 05:23 PM
I don't really understand the concern with what Muslim women wear or don't wear. I was really annoyed with the gallons of hairspray used by American women in the 1980's that made their hair look like the Tower of Babel. How I wish Christian women wore veils then. Much to do about nothing if you ask me. From what I remember, the only time the veil was challenged in the U.S was in relation to a driver's license. On that issue I can understand why the veil might be problematic, but not because it makes some people "uncomfortable".
Reply

akulion
10-07-2006, 05:25 PM
i have a problem with people with the name jack straw

i can only talk to them when their names are jack a*s

Statement by Aku

So if he meets me he should introduce himself as Jack A*s
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
10-07-2006, 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by Emir Aziz
sexual frustration of some sort?
Hahahahaha! Well, they do say Arabic women are extremely alluring creatures... so maybe he just wants a peek-a-boo?

It's obviously a type of frustration... all this fuss over veils and t-shirt slogans. I noticed he doesn't have any critisism over Madonna running around scantily dressed on stage, lol.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

MusLiM 4 LiFe
10-07-2006, 06:57 PM
jack straws a loser! a big time loser, who ain't got anything else to do except to say and cause conflict. if he can ask us to take of our niqaab then we also have the right to ask the half naked women to put some clothes on! he thinks by making this statement he'll be some top man, he just proved himself to be an idiot!

every week, there always has to be something about muslims in the news? not anything positive but its always negative. whys that? whats the beef people?!?!

i dont get how its hard to converse with a woman wearing a niqaab :? if it is, then dont talk to the woman, i dont think she wants to talk to you too. i'm starting to think the kaafirs LIKE to P of da muslims and have some undercover thing against us!

like bro mohsin said, if this is a free country and we can practise our religion freely, why is this issue raised? its obvious he likes to annoy is big time.
Reply

Mohsin
10-07-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Salam Alaikum:

No, he's not asking them to remove them permanently. Basically, he's saying when they come to his office to visit and discuss things they should remove them because he feels it's difficult to speak them when he can't see their faces, and some other stuff about it causing seperation in community. :rollseyes
Ok jk khair for info. But nevertheless, there still has been much discussion by many non-muslims that the veil should be banned altogether in this country. this is nothing but absolute hyporcisy from people who claim to live in a country which offers complete freedom to practise their religion
Reply

Mohsin
10-07-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
From what I remember, the only time the veil was challenged in the U.S was in relation to a driver's license. On that issue I can understand why the veil might be problematic, but not because it makes some people "uncomfortable".
Thats different. those are reasonable exceptions to the rule where a woman has to show her face, as in a passport and driving license. But this is slightly different
Reply

*Hana*
10-07-2006, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by Mohsin
Ok jk khair for info. But nevertheless, there still has been much discussion by many non-muslims that the veil should be banned altogether in this country. this is nothing but absolute hyporcisy from people who claim to live in a country which offers complete freedom to practise their religion
Salam Alaikum brother:

I should have given you this link in the first place. :rollseyes

You can go HERE to read the article regarding Shaw's statements.

Sorry, I didn't send it before....I wasn't thinking. :heated:

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

j4763
10-07-2006, 07:24 PM
I’m kind of split on this, on one side its may be part of the woman’s life to cover up and if she wishes to do so then in this free country she should dress however she pleases.
But I can understand that speaking to someone in person and not being able to see there face is a bit odd, but that’s me I like to see the reaction and facial expressions (smile, frown) of the person I’m talking to.
Reply

MusLiM 4 LiFe
10-07-2006, 07:27 PM
i dont find it odd.. you dont need to see a persons face, how do you talk to someone over the internet? on MSN or whatever?
Reply

j4763
10-07-2006, 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by MusLiM 4 LiFe
i dont find it odd.. you dont need to see a persons face, how do you talk to someone over the internet? on MSN or whatever?
But in that case i know that person isn't in front of me.
If i were talking to someone over the phone i know i cant see them.

But its odd if your talking to someone 2 feet away from you and you cant see there expression.
Reply

MusLiM 4 LiFe
10-07-2006, 07:32 PM
then dont talk to them innit? ignore them. anyway guys arent supposed to be talking to a sister. and before you ask, a sister can can remove the hijab infront of another sister.

you can know their expressions by the tone of their voice.
Reply

j4763
10-07-2006, 07:35 PM
Originally Posted by MusLiM 4 LiFe
then dont talk to them innit? ignore them. anyway guys arent supposed to be talking to a sister. and before you ask, a sister can can remove the hijab infront of another sister
Well to just blank someone is considered quite rude where i'm from. With regards to guys not allowed to talk to sisters does this make mine and your exchange of words wrong (even if the talk is not in person)?

you can know their expressions by the tone of their voice.
I'm afraid this isn’t always the case.
Reply

bint_muhammed
10-07-2006, 07:37 PM
if the muslims of blackburn vote for him again i'm gonna be really pissed off! (excuse my language)
Reply

Kamilah
10-07-2006, 07:37 PM
Originally Posted by Emir Aziz
sexual frustration of some sort?

lol, my sentiments exactly...!!!

this is just utter islamaphobia...mixed with the profound obsession of women!!!!!

my head started spinning when i saw the front page of his article!

and some muslim man was quoted saying.."its more of a cultural thing"

if he told me to take my veil off i would tell him exactly where to go!! the stupid pervert!

the only thing that is going to cause further community seperation is him highlighting the issue
Reply

MusLiM 4 LiFe
10-07-2006, 07:44 PM
Originally Posted by j4763
Well to just blank someone is considered quite rude where i'm from. With regards to guys not allowed to talk to sisters does this make mine and your exchange of words wrong (even if the talk is not in person)?



I'm afraid this isn’t always the case.
what do you mean by blanking someone is rude? if u mean wot i think so if you go past loads of people in some busy place and you dont say hi to one of them, thats considered rude right?

the only time a brother n sister can talk is 4 dawah purposes. IF u feel uncomfortable talking to a sister wearing the niqaab go to anoher sister that isnt. not all of us wear the niqaab...!

why cant you know the expressions by the tone of their voices?
Reply

MusLiM 4 LiFe
10-07-2006, 07:45 PM
Originally Posted by Kamilah
lol, my sentiments exactly...!!!

this is just utter islamaphobia...mixed with the profound obsession of women!!!!!

my head started spinning when i saw the front page of his article!

and some muslim man was quoted saying.."its more of a cultural thing"

if he told me to take my veil off i would tell him exactly where to go!! the stupid pervert!

the only thing that is going to cause further community seperation is him highlighting the issue
looooooool, joker. i was going to say that but thought its a little inappropiate for this :p but yeah, thats what i would have thought!
Reply

j4763
10-07-2006, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by MusLiM 4 LiFe
what do you mean by blanking someone is rude? if u mean wot i think so if you go past loads of people in some busy place and you dont say hi to one of them, thats considered rude right?
Well I guess I mean ignore someone, if I needed to ask a Muslim lady a question I would feel it was rude to not ask the question to a lady because of the veil and to rather ignore her and instead to pose my question to a Muslim who was not wearing a veil, to me that’s a bit prejudice.

the only time a brother n sister can talk is 4 dawah purposes. IF u feel uncomfortable talking to a sister wearing the niqaab go to anoher sister that isnt. not all of us wear the niqaab...!
I would never feel uncomfortable talking to a lady with a veil but just different to talking to one without.
why cant you know the expressions by the tone of their voices?
When one smiles for example, one doesn’t necessary make a sound (speak).
Reply

MusLiM 4 LiFe
10-07-2006, 07:59 PM
Well I guess I mean ignore someone, if I needed to ask a Muslim lady a question I would feel it was rude to not ask the question to a lady because of the veil and to rather ignore her and instead to pose my question to a Muslim who was not wearing a veil, to me that’s a bit prejudice.
im just saying, if it bothers you so much then you shouldnt ask the sister with the niqaab on right :rollseyes im sure she wouldnt mind ^o)

I would never feel uncomfortable talking to a lady with a veil but just different to talking to one without.
if this is the case, what are we arguing about? lol

When one smiles for example, one doesn’t necessary make a sound (speak).
if you're talking for dawah purposes there shouldnt be no smiling..! LOL
Reply

j4763
10-07-2006, 08:06 PM
Originally Posted by MusLiM 4 LiFe
im just saying, if it bothers you so much then you shouldnt ask the sister with the niqaab on right :rollseyes im sure she wouldnt mind ^o)
She might feel i was avoiding her because she wore a veil, which is prejudice, and she might be offended (you never know, thats why its best to treat all the same)


if this is the case, what are we arguing about? lol
Arguing? I didn't think we were, maybe having a discussion, but arguing? I'm sorry if it felt like that.
if you're talking for dawah purposes there shouldnt be no smiling..! LOL
Wow, really? I never knew that. May i ask the reson why?
Reply

Fishman
10-07-2006, 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by MusLiM 4 LiFe
if you're talking for dawah purposes there shouldnt be no smiling..! LOL
:sl:
If we are just stern all the time then what use would the dawah be? People like it when they see others joke and laugh, and prehaps they would think differently towards Muslims if they found out that they were ordinary people just like them. The nicest people I know are those Muslims who always smile.
:w:
Reply

MusLiM 4 LiFe
10-07-2006, 08:20 PM
i was being sarcastic bro :rollseyes thatz what the LOL woz 4 lol
Reply

*Hana*
10-07-2006, 09:53 PM
Peace to you j4763:

What you also have to consider is how uncomfortable it is for a sister to remove her veil to speak to you. You listen with your ears and speak with your mouth, you don't have to see my face to know what I've said. Trust me, if I'm angry, you'll know it by the sound of my voice, if I'm happy, you will also hear it in my voice and if we're having a discussion with normal tones, you will know that too. You know, the blind have managed to hold entire, meaningful, intelligent conversations without ever seeing a face. I'm sure a sighted person is just as capable without seeing the entire face. :)

Peace to you,
Hana
Reply

Muezzin
10-07-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I don't really understand the concern with what Muslim women wear or don't wear. I was really annoyed with the gallons of hairspray used by American women in the 1980's that made their hair look like the Tower of Babel.
Ha!

How I wish Christian women wore veils then. Much to do about nothing if you ask me. From what I remember, the only time the veil was challenged in the U.S was in relation to a driver's license. On that issue I can understand why the veil might be problematic, but not because it makes some people "uncomfortable".
I wish more people shared your view. It's reasonable and respectful to the ideas of democracy. :)

Originally Posted by j4763
I’m kind of split on this, on one side its may be part of the woman’s life to cover up and if she wishes to do so then in this free country she should dress however she pleases.
But I can understand that speaking to someone in person and not being able to see there face is a bit odd, but that’s me I like to see the reaction and facial expressions (smile, frown) of the person I’m talking to.
That's also a fair, non-inflammatory comment which promotes discussion rather than argumentation.

As for Mr Straw's comments, I think they've been blown way out of proportion. Sure, I don't agree with him, but I don't think Muslims should be angry at him.
Reply

afriend
10-07-2006, 11:31 PM
Oh hey!

Some people like having G*Y haircuts and acting like chavs....They're really reallly a great contribution to the community right? Countless assets to the police etc. going to waste....But OH NO!! Harmless, veiled women doing no harm, rather maybe doing some good to the community, let's pick on them cos my hand is scratching to do oppress Muslims.

Go Home and drink out of your STRAW
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
10-07-2006, 11:41 PM
how about we remove straw's teeth instead :anger:


may Allah guide OR destroy such shameless disgusting people Ameen !
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-08-2006, 12:10 AM
Assalamu Alaikum

Originally Posted by Emir Aziz
sexual frustration of some sort?
Please we should not accord that it could be possible to be such. Rather deny any such possiblity in the open so as not to become causal to.

I think it is rather that many European Nobility types regard that it is their right to access the vanity of any person they please through looking at their hair. Many wealthy and powerful Europeans are quite accustomed to assessing any person at immediate sight by what mental imagery comes into their mind about hair. They regard that as a sign of what is real unfortunately since hair can also accord any image of known disease. So all the more reason for us to cover. Also reason to express that our own accounts are only held in knowledge among other Muslims. This is an important issue that I am particularly sensitive to as a person with family whom are not Muslim, and also in that I have obligation within Aboriginal Kinship to action of many Prayer of the Muslim among and in ancestry, but that Kinship system includes many non-Muslim Aborigines, and that accords a danger. So I am thereby often assumed wrongfully to be not meeting any obligation within Aboriginal Kinship, but only by, in entering the Ummah by preference to the Aboriginal system (since it is faulted by modern circumstance), having not so frequently been attuned with Aboriginal kinship.

Originally Posted by DaNgErOuS MiNdS
I think the media blew it out of proportion if you ask me, they just want to highlight the veil rather then what Straw said. It's just another potryal by the media about how Muslims are and how they don't follow society...

The Pope's comments didn't quite get the riots going and the Muslims didn't react so maybe this story might trigger something.
Muslims needed to be far more careful about the Pope as he could readily have been baiting us into giving false proof of allegations against us; but as we do not know, we can only know never to trust the motivation of the assertions of any persons receiving benefit from the fact that many Catholic Churches still today assault congregations with presenting Father, Son and Holy Ghost as through individual men, rather than as three manifestations of matter which in Allah alone combine as one. However, even without knowing what kind of person Straw is, it seems that his comment could trigger a more useful opposition of the right wing dislike of Islam.

I reckon that particularly given that France legislated against children schooling with any expression of Religious beleif apparent, and knowing that such could (and by now has) discriminate against Muslim girls receiving adequate education; Hijab is most probably that issue around which many ideological battles are most safely able to be conducted.

I would like to make the point that in many cultures it is regarded as wrong for any eye contact between man and women whom are not family or preparing to become married. Here is another example: in New Zealand (Aoteora) Maori (a people) culture for a child to look into an adults eye that is not immediate family is the height of vulgarity. Maori school children in the past were condemed for not looking teachers in the eye but when they had been made appropirately afraid to by culture. I often feel that I would prefer to be able to keep my eyes covered to keeping all but my hair covered with veil; but of course in modest clothing also.

Perhaps if the issue of Hijab is likely to become a larger manifested argument then we should begin to be more openly analytical among persons in the west whom enquire as to why is Hijab and what is Hijab as well as what they guess of how is Hijab. In fact the "how" may then be able to be better proven when we can remove wrong perception of whys and whats. Many in the west may already be accessing the Muslim teaching of how Hijab is manifest in mind. For example the genetic of red/orange hair is already an embodiment of.

What fools they will be proven for an assault to the worth of Hijab. But in that we also will be better enabled to condition women in the west into better modesty.

Perhaps the total answer should be some sort of equation. For every one Muslim woman, whom upon one day, felt that in Allah her work that day needed not be under a veil: how many many women in the west must be enabled to consider Islam to accomodate the expense?

Assalamu Alaikum
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-08-2006, 12:16 AM
That he is called Jack Straw makes for an interesting analogy to a needle in a haystack. I think that particular needle was the way that the pharmecutical industry has been accounting Islam wrong wrongfully by imagining that Governance by Shari'ah could, or even might seek to, legislated the oppression of Christian and other belief in One God. When of course such is forbidden in Shari'ah. Neither are Muslims ever likely to legislate against much of what folk in 'the west' imagine; while France effected a legislation against Hijab. wasalam
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-08-2006, 03:03 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Salam Alaikum:

These comments just show his ignorance and if we remain calm and steadfast in our want to worship Allah, swt, by wearing the veil, the situation will disappear.

I just wonder if a female visitor dressed in a mini skirt and belly shirt is asked to cover when visiting his office. :?

wasalam,
Hana
The point made by Hana hits the nail on the head about Jack Straw of course.

But I am reflecting upon my previous post and thought to add a little futher of my perspective upon why the patterns in Muslim thought towards Hijab is a realistic vehicle of debate. The matter is emminently resolvable of course.

Many non-Muslims also prefer to be covered; and if not covering their hair/neck/face/hands are rather often inclined towards manifesting as plain an appearance as they are able. So there is a high degree of sympathy from non-Muslims even if they are not expressing such. I was once in the unfortunate position to be asked in a Christian Church why I wore my hair covered. I answered that I had learned the truth about Hijab and then could not help but to cover my self since the logic of Islam is so sound. They asked then: "so it is a Muslim thing then"; and I replied as before that the logic of Islam is irrefutable in the matter of Hijab. The then accorded to me holding me at fault for not displaying my hair to Jesus in Holy Communion, little realising that I.

Later after first attending Mosque in exasperation from being prevented from Prayer among Christians; I wrote in letter to local Muslim sisters that often for Australians an issue arises in respect of Hijab that seems unlikely given our nature and reputations. That nature being to display weakness if it is present as an askance to be held accountable. This is essential to modern Australian culture and belongs in the Aboriginal tradition. Within that tradition all persons are held accountible through posture in portion. Thereby it is that we regard a persons honesty by how openly they display their posture. This is usually not conscious in the general population; but it is that most Australians distrust a person in whom the posture of the spine can not be witnessed. So I made the point in a letter that many Australians are not unmistakenly according to our own tradition, only regarding of a Muslim woman that if we can not see the shape of her stance that we might never know if she is an accountible person. It is not necessary to want to hold her at fault for any ill in the posture only to need to see that she has no shame in presenting her posture for public evaluation. Then Muslim women can be better regarded even in the fact of not being able to be held accountible except by their Husbands. This is just an Australian example of what sort of further cultural communications need to take place; but it is one in which there is already evidence of relsolution.

Now many more Muslim women are wearing Hijab in a fashion that is hugging at the chin and neck, and it seems that Australians are better enabled to trust them in that fashion. While other Muslim women, whom are more adept with non-verbal communication, are wearing fuller Hijab that falls more direct under the chin so concealing the shape of the posture. The necessity is to find the happy solution which enables that Muslims are not being forced to reveal any matter not right; and that simultaneously enables that Muslims are regarded as honest and of social worth.

wasalam
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-08-2006, 05:36 AM
Assalamu Alaikum every one

also Hijab is the clear winner for determining which battle ground will be that ensured to resolve the Gog and Magog situation

One Man, after becoming Muslim, defined it to me that Magog is down below demanding that Gog fetch pleasure all day every day: in that Magog is the physical body and Gog is the Human Spirit. So I pointed out to him that if only Gog demands pleasure from Magog more strongly then it all works out OK.

Hijab can define this process of healing

Assalamu Alaikum rvq
Reply

Mohsin
10-08-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
As for Mr Straw's comments, I think they've been blown way out of proportion. Sure, I don't agree with him, but I don't think Muslims should be angry at him.
In a way I agree with you, we shouldn't expect anything less....but don't forget there are a lot of scholars who are of the opinion a veil is obligatory. If you look at it from that point of view it's quite serious comments for sisters, i mean imagine If he had said men must shave their beards, or women can't wear hijaabs?
Reply

rania2820
10-08-2006, 11:38 AM
i think the root of the problem is that Muslim women should not be going to shake a man's hand that is not her mahram.however i kinda agree with jack straw.it's hard to speak to a woman that wears niqab.i don't have anything against niqab.because i even wear niqab.but when i go to certain places(like school and universities) i take my niqab off.also for job interviews i take it off.
Reply

Pk_#2
10-08-2006, 11:50 AM
AsalamuAlaykum,



In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, The Most Merciful
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu


Why Jack Straw wants Muslim women to remove the veil

This is a very strange and funny request from an MP whose Blackburn
constituency has 25% Muslims, and whose votes helped him to get elected and
become foreign secretary. Also during his time in the cabinet he visited
many Muslim countries and had the opportunity to see first hand how Muslims
live especially our social system which is based on segregation of the sexes
with certain exceptions.

During election time Mr Straw always visited local masjids and even spoke
from the minbar urging Muslims to vote for him as opposed to voting for the
Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Many Muslim leaders like Ibrahim Master
and Lord Patel campaigned for him vehemently. I’m absolutely certain that Mr
Straw took his shoes of when he entered the masjid and did not ask the
question “Why must I take my shoes off, because when I visit the church I
keep them on”? And this is a sign of division among communities. Maybe he
thought better to accept their backward ways, after all these idiots still
vote for me regardless of how many Muslim countries we invade and how many
Muslims we kill.

Many Muslims like the ones I have mentioned campaigned for him and spent
many hours together with him and discussed about Islam and I’m sure he asked
them many questions. Surely the question of Muslim women’s dress must have
come up especially since the case of the French hijab ban and Shabina Begum
excluded from a Luton school were prominent in the media?

The answer is very simple and even these brothers were able to explain to Mr
Straw that the reason Muslim women wear the hijab is because it’s a
commandment from Allah. Also if they choose to wear the niqab and even if
they want to cover their eyes then Islamically they can and also living in a
free democratic society one can dress as one wishes or wear as less as one
wishes.

It’s quite hysterical that Muslim women’s veil bothers him but not the way
some western women dress in summer which agitates the emotions of most men,
the homosexuals being the exception of course. Maybe it’s because he
approves and likes that style of clothing which reveals parts of the female
anatomy. I wonder what the Victorians would have thought. Maybe they would
have said “What are these prostitutes doing outside of the brothel. Nowadays
to think such thoughts classifies one as being backward or Islamic
fundamentalist woman repressor.

Its funny that for women to cover in public is considered to be backward and
ignorant, but to ask them to reveal more and more of their flesh is
considered to be modern and enlightened. An important point to consider is
that women can only reveal so much flesh before they might as well be naked;
this thought would be repulsive to Mr Straw but the question I would ask is
why? Their not wearing the veil and dividing communities but rather
liberating themselves and going back to what some would say “ nature”.

Muslims of course find western dress code disgusting, shameful and
degenerate because we compare against the Islamic dress code which
originated from Allah swt who knows better than humans, even a collection of
the most intellectual humans gathered together in Parliament or the ones
with the highest IQ’s from Mensa. No matter how clever they are with
multiples PhD’s it was Allah who created them in the first place.

We as Muslims can see that in the west rape, sexual harassment, fornication,
sexual diseases, illegitimate kids, abortion, all exist because of the
social system not being defined correctly.

A discussion needs to take place on these issues:

Is their co-relation between men and women relationships which leads to the
corruption I mentioned above? If the answer is yes then what are correct way
men and women should interact with each other and who should define this
system?

Does women’s dress contribute to rape, sexual harassment?

Does the way Muslim women dress lead to social problems?

And is the Islamic social system a way to eliminate these problems which are
on the rise in the west?

I urge Mr Straw to think about the questions I have posed and engage in a
dialogue with Muslims who do not massage his ego but rather speak the truth
regardless of the consequences from the British state fearing the wrath of
Allah more than any human being.

Showkotali@hotmail.com

Reply

Pk_#2
10-08-2006, 11:52 AM
AslamuAlaykum,

ok people let's make du'a for him.



May Allah (swt) guide him on the right path and open HIS EYES!!

(ok now raise your hands and lower your heads)

AMEEN!!
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-08-2006, 12:47 PM
I'm not quite sure where muslims stand on this isue. - I know some think it's part of the culture and some think it's mandatory as it 'may' state in the Quran.

Somebody commented 'Why do Sikhs wear turbans then?' How many Sikhs have you seen covering their faces with the turban? I've seen none ;D

Yes Sikh men/women are tld to keep the head covered. But not all abide by the rule. Just aas some Jews do.
Reply

S_87
10-08-2006, 12:53 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
I'm not quite sure where muslims stand on this isue. - I know some think it's part of the culture and some think it's mandatory as it 'may' state in the Quran.

Somebody commented 'Why do Sikhs wear turbans then?' How many Sikhs have you seen covering their faces with the turban? I've seen none ;D

Yes Sikh men/women are tld to keep the head covered. But not all abide by the rule. Just aas some Jews do.
behind the veil is a woman.
it may be an older woman with many children and grandchildren
it may be a middle aged woman
its may be a young woman who cares about fashion and looking good just like every other young woman

as part of the sikh religion do men carry a dagger? :?

also niqab is not culture. its it part of religion. some consider it obligatory and other consider it recommended, but there is enough evidence that indicates after the verses regarding covering up was revealed the women started covering their faces
Reply

DaNgErOuS MiNdS
10-08-2006, 01:46 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
I'm not quite sure where muslims stand on this isue. - I know some think it's part of the culture and some think it's mandatory as it 'may' state in the Quran.

Somebody commented 'Why do Sikhs wear turbans then?' How many Sikhs have you seen covering their faces with the turban? I've seen none ;D

Yes Sikh men/women are tld to keep the head covered. But not all abide by the rule. Just aas some Jews do.
I don't see what is so funny, Sikh's wear going through the same situations with their Turbans 30 years back. Just like you might find it funny about covering faces, people back then must have found it funny covering their heads.

Muslims females should be allowed to wear veils as part of their religion just like Jews are allowed to wear the skull caps and Sikh's wear turbans and so on regardless weather it cover the head or face.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-08-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally Posted by amani

as part of the sikh religion do men carry a dagger? :?
Yes this is so! But not just men carry it but women too carry it. - It's not a dagger, but a ceremonial sword!
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-08-2006, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by DaNgErOuS MiNdS
I don't see what is so funny, Sikh's wear going through the same situations with their Turbans 30 years back. Just like you might find it funny about covering faces, people back then must have found it funny covering their heads.

.
I laugh because the people who bring it up question as to why Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans. There is no comparison! I'm highlighting the fact it should not be brought up as they are worlds apart in this context! :)
Reply

DaNgErOuS MiNdS
10-08-2006, 02:14 PM
Are they? do you not agree that:

They're both relgious symbols, they're both misunderstood by people of diffrent faiths, they're both seen as out of the out ordinary, people who wear them are usually riducled or attacked because of them by racists. I find it abit ironic that you laugh.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-08-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally Posted by DaNgErOuS MiNdS
Are they? do you not agree that:

They're both relgious symbols, they're both misunderstood by people of diffrent faiths, they're both seen as out of the out ordinary, people who wear them are usually riducled or attacked because of them by racists. I find it abit ironic that you laugh.
Well in my opinion head covering is essential to bith Sikhs and Muslims. But covering of the face is not. The veil (covering of face in front of all men my women) was mandatory in india long before Guru Nanak graced this world. So after he prohibited the covering of face. - It's not the same as the Hijab serves the same purpose, that the Burkhka would.
Reply

*Hana*
10-08-2006, 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Well in my opinion head covering is essential to bith Sikhs and Muslims. But covering of the face is not. The veil (covering of face in front of all men my women) was mandatory in india long before Guru Nanak graced this world. So after he prohibited the covering of face. - It's not the same as the Hijab serves the same purpose, that the Burkhka would.
Who are you to decide what is or is not manditory? There are many scholars who believe it is and many women who believe it is. This is part of their faith and whether you, me or Jack Straw thinks otherwise makes absolutely no difference.

In Canada it is so disrespectful to wear a headress of any kind in our Legions, yet the Sikhs that came fought to be allowed to wear their turban inside our Legions, which by the way, are dedicated to Canadian War Vets. How do you think Legion members felt when the Sikhs won the right to do so and entered the Legions wearing a turban? You don't think this created animosity and caused a problem integrating into that social group?

In Canada, our Military and Police personnel have uniforms that require wearing a specific type of hat. Sikhs that came here that wanted to join these forces refused to remove their turbans even though the hat was a manditory part of the uniform. So, they fought it and won. Now, these men are paid the same amount for service, but cannot give the same service as others that serve. Why? When the wearing of Gas Masks is necessary, or protective head gear, they can't wear them so they can't participate. In the Military, they fought to be allowed to wear their ceremonial sword as part of THEIR uniform. Didn't matter it was not part of the Canadian uniform. They won. Now, these men cannot serve aboard naval ships...why? They are not able to negotiate the ladders in small quarters properly and the chances of injury are too great. So now what? They won the right to wear these things that are important to them, but cannot participate in other aspects.

The wearing of the veil has absolutely no effect whatsoever on society, does not hinder the participation or integration of women into a non muslim society, and yet you find it amusing that we would want to stand up and say Straw is wrong in his comments. Where was the humour when Sikhs came to Canada demanding the right to wear their native dress in places where it is considered disrespectful, or in positions where it hindered not only their own safety, but the safety of those around them?

Muslims are not asking any country to change their laws or safety regulations in order to wear the veil. They simply want the right to practice their religion according to their beliefs. A right that is already suppose to be in place in the UK and many other countries around the world.

By the way, I have absolutely nothing against Sikhs or their right to wear the turban and/or ceremonial sword. I just wanted to point out that your comparison of a turban and veil doesn't work.

Hana
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-08-2006, 04:08 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Who are you to decide what is or is not manditory? There are many scholars who believe it is and many women who believe it is. This is part of their faith and whether you, me or Jack Straw thinks otherwise makes absolutely no difference.
That is my point sister. Not all muslims agree on it. So that's the flaw in the argument. You talk of the turban. I'm the one saying they are two seprate things. Turbans are not obscuring the face, this is the argument being addressed by Jack.
Reply

DaNgErOuS MiNdS
10-08-2006, 04:24 PM
So if some Sikh's say they think they shouldn't wear the turban it means all Sikhs stop wearing them???
Reply

*Hana*
10-08-2006, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
That is my point sister. Not all muslims agree on it. So that's the flaw in the argument. You talk of the turban. I'm the one saying they are two seprate things. Turbans are not obscuring the face, this is the argument being addressed by Jack.
No, that is the point. It doesn't matter if all Muslims agree on it, the ones that wear it believe it is part of their faith. That's all that matters.

Straw's argument was also that it didn't allow these sisters to adapt socially or interact with community, which is rubbish. The turban however, as I've explained, does create difficulties in some social arenas. The veil does not. Many Sikhs in Canada were angry that others would demand these rights because there are many of choices they could have made in order to integrate with society. So, because there is not agreement amongst Sikhs, does that mean the others should be denied their rights? The turban may obscure my vision in a movie theatre, (namely because I am vertically challenged), does that mean I am within my right to tell him to remove it or to sit in the back? Maybe I find it very distracting to talk to a man wearing a turban, especially the ones that are very tall, do I have a right to ask him to remove it so I am more comfortable and not distracted?

You're missing the point here. A sister does not need to show her face in order to speak. A man does not need to see her face in order to understand. People make huge deals via telephone, without ever seeing the face of another. Some make plans to invade an innocent country without seeing the other's face, many choose a spouse without seeing their face. Society has managed to function and communicate for many years without having to gawk at each other.

Hana
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-08-2006, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by DaNgErOuS MiNdS
So if some Sikh's say they think they shouldn't wear the turban it means all Sikhs stop wearing them???

lol, well you can get only one form of turban. Islamic head hear consists of four types. Hijab, Chadoor, Burkha and another i can't recall. So it's not like you've been restricted all of them just the one htat will obscure your face. We're just debating i mean no insult! :)
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-08-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
No, that is the point. It doesn't matter if all Muslims agree on it, the ones that wear it believe it is part of their faith. That's all that matters.

Straw's argument was also that it didn't allow these sisters to adapt socially or interact with community, which is rubbish. The turban however, as I've explained, does create difficulties in some social arenas. The veil does not. Many Sikhs in Canada were angry that others would demand these rights because there are many of choices they could have made in order to integrate with society. So, because there is not agreement amongst Sikhs, does that mean the others should be denied their rights? The turban may obscure my vision in a movie theatre, (namely because I am vertically challenged), does that mean I am within my right to tell him to remove it or to sit in the back? Maybe I find it very distracting to talk to a man wearing a turban, especially the ones that are very tall, do I have a right to ask him to remove it so I am more comfortable and not distracted?

You're missing the point here. A sister does not need to show her face in order to speak. A man does not need to see her face in order to understand. People make huge deals via telephone, without ever seeing the face of another. Some make plans to invade an innocent country without seeing the other's face, many choose a spouse without seeing their face. Society has managed to function and communicate for many years without having to gawk at each other.

Hana
LOL that made me laugh sister. So do you conclude that all men who may approach you, do so because they lust after you?
Reply

S_87
10-08-2006, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Yes this is so! But not just men carry it but women too carry it. - It's not a dagger, but a ceremonial sword!
i think this is more dangerous than the veil as some people claimed is dangerous
Reply

*Hana*
10-08-2006, 05:30 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
LOL that made me laugh sister. So do you conclude that all men who may approach you, do so because they lust after you?
gawking doesn't mean lusting. :confused: Get your mind out of the gutter. :rollseyes

It means they don't have to stare at each other to speak. Be it male/female, female/female or male/male.

Hana
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-08-2006, 05:49 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
gawking doesn't mean lusting. :confused: Get your mind out of the gutter. :rollseyes



Hana
Erm, i'm well aware what gawk means. But it's claimed this is the reason it's worn wud that be incorrect?
Reply

*Hana*
10-08-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Erm, i'm well aware what gawk means. But it's claimed this is the reason it's worn wud that be incorrect?
The covering is a symbol of modesty, piety an act of faith. It is also a protection for us from some men who are unable to control themselves and look at them like a piece of meat in a grocery store. (And you know as well as I do, there are plenty of men out there that do that), and treat them like an object rather than a person. For men unable to show restraint it makes them speak with respect and to judge her, not on her beauty, but on her intelligence. As Muslimahs we do not welcome the advances of men and to discourage that, we cover. We are not out to attract men and covering prevents that.

So, no, we do not think all men will lust after us if we don't cover, not at all. The most important thing is we are ordained by Allah, swt, to cover. Some believe that includes a veil, others do not, but both are covering as an act of worship. The act of covering also benefits us in other ways, (some are mentioned above).

To prove that point. Before reverting I always dressed conservatively, but that did not stop the stares, or catcalls, or advances even when clearly stated there was no interest. I have NEVER had that happen when covered. I was never disrespected but was always treated with respect when I spoke to someone or if someone had to speak to me.

Hana
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-09-2006, 07:52 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
The covering is a symbol of modesty, piety an act of faith. It is also a protection for us from some men who are unable to control themselves and look at them like a piece of meat in a grocery store. (And you know as well as I do, there are plenty of men out there that do that), and treat them like an object rather than a person. For men unable to show restraint it makes them speak with respect and to judge her, not on her beauty, but on her intelligence. As Muslimahs we do not welcome the advances of men and to discourage that, we cover. We are not out to attract men and covering prevents that.

So, no, we do not think all men will lust after us if we don't cover, not at all. The most important thing is we are ordained by Allah, swt, to cover. Some believe that includes a veil, others do not, but both are covering as an act of worship. The act of covering also benefits us in other ways, (some are mentioned above).

To prove that point. Before reverting I always dressed conservatively, but that did not stop the stares, or catcalls, or advances even when clearly stated there was no interest. I have NEVER had that happen when covered. I was never disrespected but was always treated with respect when I spoke to someone or if someone had to speak to me.

Hana
You've put your point across very well, i've nothing to add but accept it's what you desire.

Although i did think as Sikhs, Muslims too covered the head as God is all around, so it it is out of respect. Think Jews do this too.

BTW - Is head covering in a mosque essential?
Reply

rania2820
10-09-2006, 07:59 AM
yes it is very selfish of him to only think about how he feels.and not how other people might feel.some Muslim women believe the face veil is fard.so imagine how uncomfortable they must feel if they are asked to take it off.its just like when in France women were asked to take off the head scarfs in schools.im sure they felt really uncomfortable.
Reply

Kamilah
10-09-2006, 01:07 PM
why do only sikh men have to grow their hair and wear turbans? why only men?
Reply

IceQueen~
10-09-2006, 01:17 PM
all the stuff about ruining social relations or whatever!- that's what the veil is meant for!!! women aren't supposed to go out and get friendly with any tom dick n harry off the street! (muslim women anyways :rollseyes )
Reply

nishom
10-09-2006, 01:29 PM
Islamonline.com

Veil is woman’s own choice – Prescott
10/9/2006 11:30:00 AM GMT


Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said that Muslim women should be free to wear the veil, adding that the debate over the issue could increase prejudice and damage community relations, The Telegraph reported.

Prescott’s comments largely isolated House of Commons leader Jack Straw, who angered the Muslim community last week when he described the veil as a “visible statement of separation”, and said he asked women visiting his constituency office in Blackburn to take it off.

Prescott said that Straw had the right to raise the issue, stressing that it shouldn’t be a "no go area for debate".

But he expressed concern that such debate could lead to "considerable difficulties" in terms of community relations.

"I think a woman who wants to wear a veil - why shouldn't she? It is her choice. It is a cultural difference but it is her choice," he said.

Prescott also stressed that he wouldn’t follow Straw’s example and ask women visiting him to remove their veil.

"If somebody comes into my constituency, whether they are wearing a skull cap or wearing a turban or very dark glasses, I'm not going to ask them to remove it. I think you can communicate with them,” he said.

Other top UK officials agreed with Prescott, including the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities, and Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Wales.

Patricia Hewitt said she wouldn’t ask Muslim women to take off their veils. She admitted that she had, in the past, considered the veil as a symbol of oppression, but changed her mind after a meeting with a Muslim woman in her Leicester West constituency.

“She'd made the decision - not her parents or anybody else - that she wanted, as part of her statement of her faith, to wear the veil. I would not ask her to take that off or to change a decision that she has made as an adult woman," she told BBC1's Politics Show.
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-09-2006, 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by Kamilah
why do only sikh men have to grow their hair and wear turbans? why only men?
Why do you assume only men? Women too don't cut the hair! Some wear the turban too.

Here are some pictures.


http://www.mrsikhnet.com/uploaded_im...045-769002.JPG

http://www.mrsikhnet.com/uploaded_im...983-750617.JPG

http://www.mrsikhnet.com/uploaded_im...993-737517.JPG

Although we're off topic :)
Reply

Tania
10-09-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Why do you assume only men? Women too don't cut the hair! Some wear the turban too.

Here are some pictures.


http://www.mrsikhnet.com/uploaded_im...045-769002.JPG

http://www.mrsikhnet.com/uploaded_im...983-750617.JPG

http://www.mrsikhnet.com/uploaded_im...993-737517.JPG

Although we're off topic :)
Its an inside dress for Gurdwara or they are walking in the streets too like this :? :-[
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-09-2006, 02:21 PM
Originally Posted by Tania
Its an inside dress for or they are walking in the streets too like this :? :-[
Everywhere. It's the tradtional Sikh attire! Btw it's Gurdwara :)
Reply

Tania
10-09-2006, 02:29 PM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Everywhere. It's the tradtional Sikh attire! Btw it's Gurdwara :)
It means i never saw on streets a sikh women or men :-[ Its the first time when i see in women head the turban with the long veil:) Its compulsory with white or can be in other colours too:?I want to ask if there is a meaning of the white colour
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-09-2006, 02:41 PM
Originally Posted by Tania
It means i never saw on streets a sikh women or men :-[ Its the first time when i see in women head the turban with the long veil:) Its compulsory with white or can be in other colours too:?I want to ask if there is a meaning of the white colour
No can be any colour. My mum wears a black one. But Orange/white/black and blue are the main colours worn.But some Sikh women just wear a chunni (weil) you get with the salwar kameez. As long as head is covered it's not a big issue!

http://forums.waheguroo.com/uploads/...3364_thumb.jpg
Reply

*Hana*
10-10-2006, 02:06 AM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
You've put your point across very well, i've nothing to add but accept it's what you desire.

Although i did think as Sikhs, Muslims too covered the head as God is all around, so it it is out of respect. Think Jews do this too.

BTW - Is head covering in a mosque essential?
Peace to you AvarAllahNoor:

Muslim women do not have to cover in their homes in front of their own families. We cover when non Mahram males are present.

And yes, a Muslimah must cover in the mosque.

Peace,
Hana
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-10-2006, 09:37 AM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku

And yes, a Muslimah must cover in the mosque.

Peace,
Hana
And men?

I've seen a few with the topi, and a few with the shawl thing. But also acknowledged a few uncovered heads. It's compulsory for Sikhs to cover head when Gurbani (Reading from Scriptures) is done. - If any uncovered heads are visible, they are told to cover!
Reply

Ayesha Rana
10-10-2006, 09:55 AM
We cover our heads when reading the Quran...out of respect. But anyway back on topic.
Since the nineties women have been allowed to remove more and more of their clothing till now they are allowed to dress as animals i.e. naked-only animals are covered in fur (well pigs aren't) cos it makes them feel more free and comfotable and Britain is a Democracy. So why can't we just remain covered? It makes us feel comfortable and protected beneath the veil from prying eyes.
Reply

nishom
10-10-2006, 10:02 AM
Living in this country you just have to accept that men are going to look at women in such a objectifying and disrespectful manner.

Jack straws comments about the veil have come due to the fact that his masculinity and sense of power feels threatened by sisters wearing the veil in order to empower themselves from the male gaze. In this way, the male cannot exercise his power through his gaze, but rather the woman assumes control of the relationship.
Reply

Ayesha Rana
10-10-2006, 10:08 AM
Oh right so now he's an insecure attention seeker?:giggling:
Reply

AvarAllahNoor
10-10-2006, 10:13 AM
Can i ask women who wear the burkha, on the passport is the face visible?
Reply

nishom
10-10-2006, 10:17 AM
We live in a patriarchal society where, accordind to faminists such as Simone De Beauvoir, men assume power over women in every field.

Through the gaze, therefore, a man can exercise his power over a woman through sexually objectifying her according to his whims and desires.

However, this view has indeed been challenged by many, with some sociologists specialising in the field of gender, arguing that it is indeed the woman who holds the power, since she is the means through which a man can fulfill his desires. Thus, by beautifying herself, she instantly gets the attention of men who fantasise to be with her.

The veil is an excellent way for women to act so that men dont lustfully gaze upon them , as well as being an action which means that they are not drawing attention to themselves. Masha'allah.
Reply

S_87
10-10-2006, 10:21 AM
Originally Posted by AvarAllahNoor
Can i ask women who wear the burkha, on the passport is the face visible?
yes it is :)

and we have no objection being checked for security reasons
Reply

Zulkiflim
10-10-2006, 02:20 PM
Salaam,

Check this out from a moderate muslim,this same muslim would also say the Quran is corrupted and it need to be revised.

Salman Rushdie says veils for Muslim women "take away power"

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Tuesday October 10, 2006

London- British author Salman Rushdie Tuesday joined the delicate debate about face veils for Muslim women saying they "suck" and weakened a woman's position. The writer, who was the subject of a fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeni of Iran in the late 1980s over his novel, The Satanic Verses, said he regarded the veil as a way of taking power away from women.

Speaking in a BBC interview, Rushdie supported the position of Jack Straw, the former British Foreign Secreatry, who last week sparked controversy with his comment that the veil was a "visible statement of difference and separation."

"He (Straw) was expressing an important opinion which is that veils suck - which they do," the Indian-born author said.

"Speaking as somebody with three sisters and a very largely female Muslim family, there is not a single woman I know in my family or in their friends who would have accepted the wearing of a veil," Rushdie said.

"The battle against the veil has been a long and continuing battle against the limitation of women so, in that sense, I am completely on his side. I think the veil is a way of taking power away from women," said Rushdie.
In time they will be called western muslim,who do not pray,eat pork,drink alchohol,wear immodestly....all to show Islam is peace and unoppresive.

To show to the western world Islam is forward,they would be like the western world.

Such people are growing in abundace in the west,those who worship moneya nd support the western decadence and Israel.

Astarfillah.
Reply

Keltoi
10-10-2006, 05:01 PM
If you don't like Western "decadence" and assimilating into the society in which you live, the logical answer would be to move somewhere you feel more comfortable. Don't be a hypocrite.
Reply

bint_muhammed
10-10-2006, 06:11 PM
the west is the hipocrite, which calls itself democratic, but actually cant accept people being diffrent to them!
Reply

wilberhum
10-10-2006, 06:48 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
the west is the hipocrite, which calls itself democratic, but actually cant accept people being diffrent to them!
The west is the ultimate hypocrites.

After allowing other cultures to emigrate, they don’t want to change there culture to accommodate the emigrates.

How rude we are. :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:
Reply

- Qatada -
10-10-2006, 06:52 PM
You guy's better stop going offtopic, otherwise we'll have to start issuing warnings.



Peace.
Reply

aamirsaab
10-10-2006, 06:53 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by Keltoi
If you don't like Western "decadence" and assimilating into the society in which you live, the logical answer would be to move somewhere you feel more comfortable. Don't be a hypocrite.
I was under the impression that the west was, for the most part, democratic whereby if one doesn't like something, one has the ability to change it (through legal means). Guess I was wrong. But I can't be wrong, can I?!
Reply

bint_muhammed
10-10-2006, 07:38 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
The west is the ultimate hypocrites.

After allowing other cultures to emigrate, they don’t want to change there culture to accommodate the emigrates.

How rude we are. :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:
:giggling: :giggling: :giggling: how funny you are! :rollseyes silly who mentioned anything about the west changing their culture, accepting other culture and their values is what i'm talking about! honey try not twisting words.
Reply

wilberhum
10-10-2006, 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by ya_Giney
:giggling: :giggling: :giggling: how funny you are! :rollseyes silly who mentioned anything about the west changing their culture, accepting other culture and their values is what i'm talking about! honey try not twisting words.
So the West does not accept other cultures?
Many from those other cultures do not accept the Western couture.
So who is the bad guy? :hiding: :hiding:
Reply

Muezzin
10-10-2006, 08:01 PM
Look, Jack Straw said something. It doesn't mean women who prefer to wear the veil have to stop wearing it. This kind of agitation is exactly what fuels groups like the BNP.

NOTE: I am not implying that Mr Straw condones the BNP's practices, I am just saying Muslims simply cannot win if they get agitated over this. Just continue wearing the veil if you so choose, and ignore Government ministers' 'preferences' - it's not like their opinions are law.
Reply

manaal
10-11-2006, 01:10 AM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Ha!

As for Mr Straw's comments, I think they've been blown way out of proportion. Sure, I don't agree with him, but I don't think Muslims should be angry at him.
Not really... this is how far it has gone:

Blair and Brown back Straw for raising veil


(Filed: 10/10/2006)





Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have both come out in support of Jack Straw's decision to open a public debate on the practice of Muslim women wearing veils.
While the Prime Minister stooped short of backing Mr Straw's call to abandon the garment altogether, he said it was "perfectly sensible" to discuss the matter in the context of breaking down barriers between communities.
And Mr Brown stated his support for Mr Straw on BBC1's Six O'Clock News when asked whether he would "prefer it and think it better for Britain if fewer people wore veils".
Mr Straw, the leader of the Commons, endured a string of verbal attacks after describing the veil as "a visible statement of separation and of difference" between Muslim and non-Muslim communities.
"I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not a matter of personal choice in the end, for people to do what they want," Mr Blair said today, "But actually what Jack Straw was saying was perfectly sensible, which is that if we want to break down the barriers between people and between different cultures and religions, then it is important these issues are raised and discussed."
advertisement


Mr Blair acknowledged that people felt very strongly about the issue, and said it was about ensuring people integrated and did not separate themselves out from the mainstream of society.
The Chancellor said that Mr Straw was "not proposing new laws, he is proposing a debate about the cultural changes that might have to take place in Britain".
And he added: "I would emphasise the importance of what we do to integrate people into our country, including the language and including history."
Meanwhile, author Salman Rushdie - once the subject of death threats arising from the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa over his novel The Satanic Verses - risked escalating the controversy by saying that veils "suck".
Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Rushdie backed Mr Straw's comments: "He was expressing an important opinion which is that veils suck - which they do.
"The battle against the veil has been a long and continuing battle against the limitation of women so, in that sense, I am completely on his side.
"I think the veil is a way of taking power away from women."
Elsewhere, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, has been noticeably cooler on Mr Straw's intervention, observing that it could cause "considerable difficulties" in terms of community relations.


Source - Daily Telegraph

Is Britain going to become another France??
Reply

manaal
10-11-2006, 01:16 AM
Originally Posted by Zulkiflim
Salaam,

In time they will be called western muslim,who do not pray,eat pork,drink alchohol,wear immodestly....all to show Islam is peace and unoppresive.

To show to the western world Islam is forward,they would be like the western world.

Such people are growing in abundace in the west,those who worship moneya nd support the western decadence and Israel.

Astarfillah.
Actually they are alreadt doing this.

I once saw this interview on a news channel about life in Saudi Arabia and they were interviewing some people. The only Arab Muslim men they managed to find were wearing ear-rings and with wierd haircuts! These guys were saying that the shariah police were a bit too strict and all that!
They got hold of these people because they had the same view on the matter. Why couldn't they just interview a real Muslim?
Reply

Ulysses
10-11-2006, 01:28 AM
Originally Posted by amani
:sl:

i think straw is a class a muppet as well as zionist with a hidden agenda. i HOPE those muslims who were keen on voting him in before sees some sense!
I agree! My folks were of Nordic descent, and as a believer in Odin, I believe I should be allowed to wear a big furry hat with horns on it, even if it DOES defy public safety statutes :D

Reply

akulion
10-11-2006, 01:34 AM
if that is your belief then follow it :)

because there is nothing worse than a hypocrite :)

Let there be no compulsion in religion
To you be your beliefs and To me be mine [Al-Quran]
Reply

Zulkiflim
10-11-2006, 04:00 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
If you don't like Western "decadence" and assimilating into the society in which you live, the logical answer would be to move somewhere you feel more comfortable. Don't be a hypocrite.

Salaam,

Hmm wondering why you put decadenc in ""?

Is it becasue you cant accept the truth?

And am i from the west?
I think you should read more and digest the iformation first before writing.

I am from the east,small fine Singapore,my dear.
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-11-2006, 04:32 AM
Assalamu Alaikum folk with an interest in the wearing of Hijab in 'the west' (where ever we are wester than any where else in that I am west of only New Zealand and a few atolls to the international date line)

Originally Posted by amani
behind the veil is a woman.
it may be an older woman with many children and grandchildren
it may be a middle aged woman
its may be a young woman who cares about fashion and looking good just like every other young woman
Hmmm, I don't know that "just like every other young woman" is necessarily true. In fact I believe that I think it is necessarily not true. There are young women whom prefer still today looking honest to looking good. That is a good reason also to want to be in Hijab.

What other reasons are there besides simple modesty:
To portray honesty in safety is only the most obvious;
Often the sensation of any weight upon the head (even of longer hair) can assist to accord that the attention is more focussed in the physical body;
To cover the expulsion of breath in case shaytan are nearby is another good reason;
As a reminder in bodily sensation of what reality is in Allah is always present when we wear any garment for any Religious reason;
etc etc etc

These are all reasons which accord that we can only be suspicious of those whom want for Hijab to be removed.

Originally Posted by Keltoi
If you don't like Western "decadence" and assimilating into the society in which you live, the logical answer would be to move somewhere you feel more comfortable. Don't be a hypocrite.
Hello Keltoi, has it ever occurred to you that any immigrant has no real further control over where they are living than any other person? Why would any person leave a homeland if not a refugee or an exile for one reason or another. I guess the only other reason would be if the person were a criminal trying to escape retribution; but surely you are not trying to insinuate that Muslims could be living side by side with Western decadence and finding a need to become assimilated to the degree that enables a livelihood, only because of wanting to escape from owing Muslims elsewhere, so we can rule out that possiblity in this consideration. There is no reason to accord that any Muslim has any real ablity to move somewhere of a more comfortable feeling.

That we need not remove Hijab to assimilate well is a point of fact.

I am born and breed in a modern industrialised western democracy and wear Hijab. While my own family are most awful towards me in repect of, they are awful towards me in respect of most details of my life, and in fact MOST ORDINARY AUSTRALIANS are well able to accept my appearance in Hijab. I often have conversation with total strangers on public transport and when they recognise an Australian accent within the Hijab the are very often full of questions about my belief. Why? they ask, not to refute but from blatant interest. Since this is the case I am proving that wearing Hijab should never need prevent assimilation in many social contexts. Perhaps only bar the doctors clinics and offices.

Assalamu Alaimum rvq
Reply

Ulysses
10-11-2006, 04:54 AM
Originally Posted by akulion
if that is your belief then follow it :)

because there is nothing worse than a hypocrite :)

Let there be no compulsion in religion
To you be your beliefs and To me be mine [Al-Quran]
My point akulion is that wearing a hat with horns on it would be a breach of public safety, whether or not it was my belief or not.

Perhaps it is "my belief" that anyone who does not drink Pepsi-Cola at least once per week is an infidel and should be ethnically cleansed. Having such a belief does not give me the right to act upon it if it represents an enfringement on the rights of others in the society (which in this instance is Great Britain, but in the larger context is the global village).

The debate is about whether or not the veil constitutes an unequal and separate privilege for Muslm women which constitutes a breach of public safety standards, and I think secondarily Straws point about it hindering community integration. References to "Western intolerance," etc. are rather ironic to these eyes because the point of Straws comments were to provoke debate and dialogue among Britons about how they feel.

Personally, I am all for everyone being able to follow their own personal path to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The debate IMO is whether or not being able to wear a veil in public constitutes an unacceptble risk to the rights of others.

From a statistical standpoint, I'm sure it does not. From a purely legal interpretation it certainly does: face coverings are not allowed in public in Britain (e.g., motor bike riders must remove full face helmets when they enter a petrol station because they have been used by robbers in the past).

I take issue with the very concept that a woman should cover her body as a manifestation of her virtue, but then that reveals my bias. I believe there are boundaries to cultural relativity and we are exploring them.
Reply

Zulkiflim
10-11-2006, 06:43 AM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Look, Jack Straw said something. It doesn't mean women who prefer to wear the veil have to stop wearing it. This kind of agitation is exactly what fuels groups like the BNP.

NOTE: I am not implying that Mr Straw condones the BNP's practices, I am just saying Muslims simply cannot win if they get agitated over this. Just continue wearing the veil if you so choose, and ignore Government ministers' 'preferences' - it's not like their opinions are law.

Salaam,

When politician makes such remarks it will in time gain acceptannce if unchallenged.

it will just like france,muslim women now allowed to cover themselves.They are but politician who came up with million and one ideas why the veil is discriminatory.

So if we were just to remian silent everytime,a person challenges the way our religon is,then surely then our faith is dead.

We will remain silent while other abuse us and mock us,and when we react they say Islam teaches aggresivenes..

But they do not see the balme to themselves.

So you are right either be silent and take the abuse while the leaders of the coutnry make laws to limit the practise of Islam,or just be an apostate in heart and mind :ie a moderate muslim.
Reply

Zulkiflim
10-11-2006, 06:45 AM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
The west is the ultimate hypocrites.

After allowing other cultures to emigrate, they don’t want to change there culture to accommodate the emigrates.

How rude we are. :giggling: :giggling: :giggling:
Salaam,

Wonder why China town is not destroyed...LOLOL
Reply

أحمد
10-11-2006, 07:13 AM
Originally Posted by Ulysses
The debate is about whether or not the veil constitutes an unequal and separate privilege for Muslm women which constitutes a breach of public safety standards, and I think secondarily Straws point about it hindering community integration. References to "Western intolerance," etc. are rather ironic to these eyes because the point of Straws comments were to provoke debate and dialogue among Britons about how they feel.

Personally, I am all for everyone being able to follow their own personal path to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The debate IMO is whether or not being able to wear a veil in public constitutes an unacceptble risk to the rights of others.

From a statistical standpoint, I'm sure it does not. From a purely legal interpretation it certainly does: face coverings are not allowed in public in Britain (e.g., motor bike riders must remove full face helmets when they enter a petrol station because they have been used by robbers in the past).

I take issue with the very concept that a woman should cover her body as a manifestation of her virtue, but then that reveals my bias. I believe there are boundaries to cultural relativity and we are exploring them.
This stuff that Straw said sound's just like those "concerned" people who said that wearing hijab causes vitamin D deficiancy, which turned out to be false, and those people have been found out to be sick minded. Usually this is the case with politicians anyway. Their decisions are controlled by their lusts. And this method is psychologically the way of going about doing such things, slowly and in a "concerned" manner.
Reply

Muezzin
10-11-2006, 08:11 AM
Let me preface this by saying I am of the school of thought that does not regard the veil as obligatory, but I fully respect people who choose to wear it.

Originally Posted by Ulysses
My point akulion is that wearing a hat with horns on it would be a breach of public safety, whether or not it was my belief or not.
Though wearing a veil is not a breach of public safety, and not against the law.

Perhaps it is "my belief" that anyone who does not drink Pepsi-Cola at least once per week is an infidel and should be ethnically cleansed. Having such a belief does not give me the right to act upon it if it represents an enfringement on the rights of others in the society (which in this instance is Great Britain, but in the larger context is the global village).
Very true. However, wearing a veil does not in itself infringe the rights of others.

Personally, I am all for everyone being able to follow their own personal path to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. The debate IMO is whether or not being able to wear a veil in public constitutes an unacceptble risk to the rights of others.
Which it doesn't.

From a statistical standpoint, I'm sure it does not. From a purely legal interpretation it certainly does: face coverings are not allowed in public in Britain (e.g., motor bike riders must remove full face helmets when they enter a petrol station because they have been used by robbers in the past).
Have any veiled Muslim women robbed any British banks lately?

I do think for passport photos etc, the veil needs to be lifted for obvious reasons.

I take issue with the very concept that a woman should cover her body as a manifestation of her virtue, but then that reveals my bias. I believe there are boundaries to cultural relativity and we are exploring them.
True. There's nothing wrong with discussion, which is why I think this Straw thing has been blown out of proportion. I don't agree with what he said. I think his view curtails personal freedoms, which a democratic state by definition must protect. I do think a debate must be initiated. Crucially though, people must behave peacefully. So no skinheads attacking veiled women and no Muslims getting rowdy.
Reply

S_87
10-11-2006, 09:20 AM
oooh on saturday hes going to this area in blackburn for some surgery and muslims gonna be going too...in niqabs! now that is cool :shade:
Reply

Tania
10-11-2006, 09:58 AM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Let me preface this by saying I am of the school of thought that does not regard the veil as obligatory, but I fully respect people who choose to wear it.
.
May be Salman Rushdie follows the same school of thoughts:) :?
I think this whole issue is due to the election, popularity, another way to gain votes.
Reply

Muezzin
10-11-2006, 11:39 AM
Originally Posted by Tania
May be Salman Rushdie follows the same school of thoughts:) :?
After he said that they 'suck', I don't really think he respects those who choose to wear them.

I think this whole issue is due to the election, popularity, another way to gain votes.
Well, Mr Straw's comments have certainly proven popular...
Reply

akulion
10-11-2006, 03:01 PM
The debate is about whether or not the veil constitutes an unequal and separate privilege for Muslm women which constitutes a breach of public safety standards, and I think secondarily Straws point about it hindering community integration. References to "Western intolerance," etc. are rather ironic to these eyes because the point of Straws comments were to provoke debate and dialogue among Britons about how they feel.
the thing is you as well as mr jack straw missed the whole point of the veil

the veil women wear in the first place so that they can protect their beauty and their appearance from gawking eyes.

so its not a public safety issue at all - its their choice - and a choice for their own safety against people who like to stare ;)

and yet u grudge a personal choice and talk of "freedom of choice" - go figure
Reply

*Hana*
10-11-2006, 09:15 PM
Peace Ulysses:

So, as a Canadian living in the Atlantic, I am well aware of the importance of a scarf to protect me from the cold, sometimes worn over the face. As a Muslimah, I am well aware of the importance of a cover to protect and ensure my modesty.

The debate is about whether or not the veil constitutes an unequal and separate privilege for Muslm women which constitutes a breach of public safety standards, and I think secondarily Straws point about it hindering community integration. References to "Western intolerance," etc. are rather ironic to these eyes because the point of Straws comments were to provoke debate and dialogue among Britons about how they feel.
Tell me how worshipping God constitutes an unequal and separate priviledge for Muslim women and becomes a safety issue? What you or anyone else perceives as "freedom" isn't necessarily another person perception. I personally find it extremely offensive to see women walking around half naked and men walking around in speedos, but no one stops them. The western idea of freedom for women is them having the "freedom" to walk around 1/2 naked if they choose to. Western women don't consider themselves oppressed because they are able to do that, but they don't realize they are putting themselves on display and are treated as objects, they are judged on their beauty, or lack of it, rather than their intelligence. As a born and bred westerner, I have never considered that freedom. I find it pathetic and disgusting some women feel they have to present themselves in that way. I find it degrading and sets women back 200 years! As a Muslimah, I am free.....Completely free to express my opinions, thoughts and ideas without worrying if I'm pretty enough, thin enough, etc., to be "accepted". If I am very pretty, I don't have to wonder if they are taking my words seriously or just listening because I'm good eye candy. I am respected for the person I am, not the object I am. We are not at all oppressed...we are free!

People like Jack Straw want to impose their idea of freedom on others and there is no basis in fact for any statements he has made.

He didn't bring this up as a means to dialogue and debate. It became a debate when he spoke without knowledge. We CHOOSE to cover! How can that be so difficult to understand? How can it be a crime to cover yet perfectly acceptable to be uncovered??

Grrrrr, so frustrating.

Hana
Reply

akulion
10-11-2006, 11:02 PM
next they will tell people wearing clothes is a security risk too, with the excuse

"hey who knows what they are hidin under there "

astaghfirullah
Reply

Ulysses
10-12-2006, 05:25 PM
Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace Ulysses:

So, as a Canadian living in the Atlantic, I am well aware of the importance of a scarf to protect me from the cold, sometimes worn over the face. As a Muslimah, I am well aware of the importance of a cover to protect and ensure my modesty.

Tell me how worshipping God constitutes an unequal and separate priviledge for Muslim women and becomes a safety issue? What you or anyone else perceives as "freedom" isn't necessarily another person perception. I personally find it extremely offensive to see women walking around half naked and men walking around in speedos, but no one stops them. The western idea of freedom for women is them having the "freedom" to walk around 1/2 naked if they choose to. Western women don't consider themselves oppressed because they are able to do that, but they don't realize they are putting themselves on display and are treated as objects, they are judged on their beauty, or lack of it, rather than their intelligence. As a born and bred westerner, I have never considered that freedom. I find it pathetic and disgusting some women feel they have to present themselves in that way. I find it degrading and sets women back 200 years! As a Muslimah, I am free.....Completely free to express my opinions, thoughts and ideas without worrying if I'm pretty enough, thin enough, etc., to be "accepted". If I am very pretty, I don't have to wonder if they are taking my words seriously or just listening because I'm good eye candy. I am respected for the person I am, not the object I am. We are not at all oppressed...we are free!

People like Jack Straw want to impose their idea of freedom on others and there is no basis in fact for any statements he has made.

He didn't bring this up as a means to dialogue and debate. It became a debate when he spoke without knowledge. We CHOOSE to cover! How can that be so difficult to understand? How can it be a crime to cover yet perfectly acceptable to be uncovered??

Grrrrr, so frustrating.

Hana
Greetings Hana_Aku

Couple quick responses, sorry if I do not address all the points you raise.

First, it is not the worshipping which may (debatably) constitute an unfair special privilege. It is arbuably the wearing of a bodily ornament which COULD represent a risk to public safety. The conditionality of said risk being irrelevant to the issue. Risks which are low in probability are nonetheless used as a basis for many sovereigns to impose restrictions on the behavior of their citizens. We all have to daily engage in myriad hassles, and impositions on our freedom and liberty for the simple reason that society proscribes us to do so because not doing so would in many specific instances constitute a POTENTIAL risk to social welfare, e.g., obeying the speed limit.

Certainly you may be able to drive 180kph safely most of the time. But based on the simple probability that an accident is more likely to occur with increased vehicular speed, and that it will be more destructive, most soverieigns take it on themselves to impose on all of us by restricting us from driving in excess of certain speeds, no matter how skilled a driver you are, nor no matter how time pressured you are, nor your philosophies about auto racing.

Second, your comments about the offensiveness of the minimal level of clothing which is allowed in many social contexts in your society (Canada) and in many secular Western societies where there is a separation of Church and State are well-received. I can agree that allowing people to go naked should not be entertained, and were I a legislator I could even entertain the prospect that more clothing should be allowed in certain contexts.

But I would want to see empirical sociological proof that there was an objective level of increased societal risk or negative impact from the scanty dress, and would refuse to accept any religious decrees, or sacred texts as such proof unless they could be related to scientifically-verifiable empirical evidence about the contemporary setting. In short, if scanty dress really does erode the fabric of sustainable welfare in a society, then I can agree with you that it should be proscribed against. As a Buddhist, what Allah, Jesus, Moses, or any other deity or prophet said about these things 1400 years ago without backing up such claims with sociological facts is to me irrelevant. I do not want to live in a theocracy, and I do not want to even entertain the introduction of theocratic principles into my secular society. I appreciate the separation of Church and State, as do most citizens in the non-Islamic world.

Hmm, I thought that there was a number three to speak of at this time, but now I cannot think of it! :rollseyes
Reply

*Hana*
10-12-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by Ulysses
Greetings Hana_Aku

Couple quick responses, sorry if I do not address all the points you raise.

First, it is not the worshipping which may (debatably) constitute an unfair special privilege. It is arbuably the wearing of a bodily ornament which COULD represent a risk to public safety. The conditionality of said risk being irrelevant to the issue. Risks which are low in probability are nonetheless used as a basis for many sovereigns to impose restrictions on the behavior of their citizens. We all have to daily engage in myriad hassles, and impositions on our freedom and liberty for the simple reason that society proscribes us to do so because not doing so would in many specific instances constitute a POTENTIAL risk to social welfare, e.g., obeying the speed limit.
How does a veil pose a threat or risk to public safety? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds??? :giggling: Obeying the speed limit is a law and it is a proven danger to citizens/society when not obeyed. So, because vehicles have the ability to travel at 240kmh and we KNOW that can result in the death or serious injury to many, all vehicles should be banned? I want you to list the dangers of me wearing a veil has on society. I, for one, would love to see how my choice to cover is putting the life of others at risk.

Certainly you may be able to drive 180kph safely most of the time. But based on the simple probability that an accident is more likely to occur with increased vehicular speed, and that it will be more destructive, most soverieigns take it on themselves to impose on all of us by restricting us from driving in excess of certain speeds, no matter how skilled a driver you are, nor no matter how time pressured you are, nor your philosophies about auto racing.
As I've already said, we KNOW speed kills, we KNOW excessive speeding is a danger or threat to others. This is a proven fact. You can't compare the wearing of a veil in act of worship to an automobile traveling in accessive speed. My wearing of a veil doesn't make me travel down the sidewalk doing 180kmh, endangering the lives of passersby. My veil doesn't turn into a high powered piece of steel ready to slam into unsuspecting victims causing countless injuries or to hurl itself at small shrubs, trees, lamp posts, etc., causing them to be damaged.

But I would want to see empirical sociological proof that there was an objective level of increased societal risk or negative impact from the scanty dress, and would refuse to accept any religious decrees, or sacred texts as such proof unless they could be related to scientifically-verifiable empirical evidence about the contemporary setting.
There is ample proof that women who dress prevocatively are at a greater risk of being attacked, raped, murdered, harrassed, etc., than women who dress conservatively. And, no, I am not blaming women for that, but there are consequences and risks when we opt to portray ourselves in a manner that can give the wrong message. As a woman I know very well how often some women will dress in a string bikini, or use the equivalent of a wide belt for a mini skirt and hankerchief for a shirt, all for the purpose of attracting attention from males, and then when they are treated with disrespect and scream harrassment, they want everyone to feel sympathy. Sorry I don't. They put themselves at risk by how they choose to represent themselves. Then they wonder why they often attract attention very different than what they wanted. Yes, there is a danger and a risk by not covering properly. But, this is their right, their freedom. People like Straw want to take away MY freedom and oppress me because I choose not to be disrespected and because I choose to follow what is ordained by God.

If you want to follow man-made laws and ignore the laws of God, that is entirely up to you and anyone else that wants that....just don't try to force your ideas on others that find those morals and values unacceptable. If you don't like the veil, then don't look at it, don't talk to me, walk on the other side of the street. It makes no difference to me. I don't wear the veil to please you or anyone else. I wear it to please God. If there are people having issues speaking with others that dress differently than themselves, that's their problem....get therapy and get over it, or stay home. Don't attempt to socialize. However, if you want to learn about others, learn hands on why people dress a particular way, then ask them instead of making ridiculous comments with no basis in fact. Learn to be tolerant or live in your shell of ignorance....the choice is up to the individual.


I appreciate the separation of Church and State, as do most citizens in the non-Islamic world.
Islam is not only a religion it is an entire way of life. It has provided laws for all aspects of society, including religion, politics, social issues, etc., etc., etc. Islam is an entire way of life providing guidance in ALL areas, not just worship.

No one is asking a non muslim to give up their rights so that we may have ours. No one is asking a non muslim to put their life in danger so we are able to wear a veil or practice our faith. Either educate yourself as to why it's worn and accept it or reject it or just leave the sisters alone and mind your business and spend your time being concerned about yourself instead of the fashions worn by others.

(When I say "you", I'm using it in general terms, not to you in particular, so please don't be offended.)

Peace,
Hana
Reply

Kamilah
10-13-2006, 12:55 PM
Jack Straw's first surgery today, I hope he deeply regrets his statements,
and i pray niqaabi sisters do NOT take off their veil for him.

I was listening to a Bayaan about shyness and modesty, and the Shaykh related a story...

to the nearest meaning...

A eye doctor went to a poor country to offer free treatment, A old man with his Blind wife came to him for treatment, his wife was shaking, and was very much on edge. she was in full hijab covered completely from head to toe...when the doctor approached her so he could see her eye, she started crying and shaking! the doctor thought she was shaking and crying because she was in pain, the doctor asked her husband

"whats wrong with her?"

her husband said

"she is not crying out of pain, she is crying because she has to show her face to you"

(although its permissible for a women to show her face for medical reasons)

when the doctor drew closer to her, she asked him

"are you a muslim?"

he replied "yes"

then she said

"if you are muslim, I ask you by Allah(SWT) dont uncover me unless you know for sure that Allah has made it permissble for you to do that, please make sure you uncover enough for you to carry out the operation"

she was given the operation and her eyesight was restored.

she said "If it wasnt for two things I would have endured my condition"

"one- reciting the Quran"
"two- Serving my children"
Reply

Muezzin
10-14-2006, 12:33 PM
Straw addresses veil controversy in Blackburn

The leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, is meeting constituents for the first time after writing an article in the Lancashire Telegraph stating Muslim women covering their faces do not contribute to better relations in the UK.
Mr Straw sparked controversy when he asked Muslim women at his Blackburn office to consider removing their veils.
At a conference in Blackburn Town Hall today mr Straw said: "This has sparked a bigger debate than I anticipated.
"I said the same thing to the National Council of British Muslims in June, the media was there and nothing was reported then.
"It's important now that we ensure that the whole of the community in Blackburn and all the community in the UK benefit in a positive way."
Mr Straw says he does not regret making the comment and will stand by it.
Source

I wonder if anyone still thinks the media does not possibly have the capacity to blow things out of proportion.
Reply

*Hana*
10-14-2006, 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin

I wonder if anyone still thinks the media does not possibly have the capacity to blow things out of proportion.
Salam Alaikum, brother:

Ohhhh, I absolutely agree. The media are notorious for blowing the smallest, insignificant detail out of proportion to bring viewers. In my opinion, someone in a position like Jack Straw, to make such comments only makes himself look really bad in the public eye. For Muslims it's giving us a wonderful opportunity to explain why some women choose the veil to non Muslims and a great opportunity for Da'wa.

We have a tendancy to allow these small statements to erupt rather than saying, thanks for another opportunity to teach others the truth about Islam. We have to remember we should only be concerned with the words of God. He is the one that has taught us right from wrong in virtually every aspect of our lives. The words of man can only harm us if we allow it. When we react with violence or react in any fashion not acceptable in Islam, we have given that man more power and credit than he deserves and have placed his words directed to us above what God has taught us.

Imagine the message Muslims would be sending to the world if we didn't react to this type of reporting with violence or sabre rattling, but remained calm and peacefully provided the reasoning for doing what we do or for believing what we believe. We've had so many missed opportunities to show the world the truth of Islamic teachings. :cry:

Wasalam,
hana
Reply

Duhaa
10-14-2006, 08:14 PM
A few days ago, my sister was walking back from college and yeah she wears a veil. Anyway, this man stops and says excuse me, I think you're really beautiful under that veil. She looked at him like he was a few cards shy of a full deck, I mean like this --->:uuh: :ooh:

Then he said no really, I think you must be beautiful and he smiled and walked off. :mmokay:

So what I was thinking after she told me was that d'you think that was Straw in disguise? :rollseyes

Then figure this one out:
I was sitting in class at uni. This man behind me goes to some other guy that he read somewhere or something that women wear the veil because they're scared of men. What a joke?! This man believed it and said that men must be the worst kind of creation, they must be evil and he said loads of other stuff that I cant remember, some of which I didnt understand because he was foreign and spoke his own language. Go figure....:offended:

That definately wasn't Straw but hey imagine some people thinking that.....:heated:
Reply

Kamilah
10-14-2006, 08:19 PM
lol, yeah sis, I went into town and other places today...dont know if it was paranoia but i did get some funny looks off people

khayr, some non-Muslims shop assistants do make attempts to smile and make conversation.
Reply

flower of dusk
10-15-2006, 06:06 PM
:sl:
ok this is an interesting article i found on msn today. i think you should have a look. :offended:

LONDON (Reuters) - The minister responsible for race and faith called on Sunday for a Muslim teaching assistant suspended for wearing a veil to be sacked, entering a growing row over integration.

Minister for Local Government and Community Cohesion Phil Woolas told the Sunday Mirror that 24-year-old Aishah Azmi's decision to wear a veil while teaching made it impossible for her to perform her duties.

"She should be sacked. She has put herself in a position where she can't do her job," he said.

Woolas was not the only government minister to pronounce on faith issues on Sunday. Cabinet Minister Peter Hain rubbished a decision by British Airways to send home a worker for wearing a Christian cross.

"Frankly I think British Airway's order for her not to wear her cross is loopy," the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the BBC.

BA employee Nadia Eweida had refused to cover up her cross necklace under a scarf, which the airline said contravened its policy that jewellery and religious symbols on chains should not be on display.

The dispute over Azmi's veil is currently before an employment tribunal which is set to rule within days.

On Saturday Azmi told the BBC that the garment, which left just her eyes exposed, had never been a problem for pupils at the Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

She said students had "never complained" and there had never been an issue about children having difficulty in understanding her talk through the garment.

She added that although she was unveiled during an interview for the job and that a man was present, her faith meant she could not be unveiled in front of male colleagues while teaching.

Woolas said Azmi's stance amounted to sex discrimination:

"By insisting that she will wear the veil if men are there, she's saying; 'I'll work with women, not men'. That's sexual discrimination. No headteacher could agree to that.

Azmi has said she was always willing to take her veil off in front of children, but had refused to do so in the presence of male colleagues.

The issue of Muslim women wearing veils was thrust into the spotlight over a week ago when Jack Straw said Muslim women who wore full veils made community relations difficult.

He said he would prefer that women did not wear them because they acted as a "visible statement of separation and difference.


check this link out:
http://news.uk.msn.com/
Reply

Snowflake
10-15-2006, 06:30 PM
If she compromised the veil in the interview then why insist on wearing it afterwards. That's deception.
Reply

KAding
10-15-2006, 06:36 PM
I agree with this decision. There are few sane reasons to resist the wearing of a hijab by teachers. But a veil is an obvious obstruction to communication. Expressions are a very basic human way of communication, it's part of the reason why face-to-face communication is so superior over mere voice communication over, say, the phone.
Reply

*Hana*
10-15-2006, 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by Muslimah_Sis
If she compromised the veil in the interview then why insist on wearing it afterwards. That's deception.
Salam Alaikum:

I have to agree with you. Also, there is another thread about this already, HERE The later pages of the thread discuss this exact incident.

I'm sure the mods will merge the threads anyway. :)

wa'alaikum salam,
Hana
Reply

*Hana*
10-15-2006, 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
I agree with this decision. There are few sane reasons to resist the wearing of a hijab by teachers. But a veil is an obvious obstruction to communication. Expressions are a very basic human way of communication, it's part of the reason why face-to-face communication is so superior over mere voice communication over, say, the phone.
Peace to you Kading:

Will you list some of those reasons? I usually try to be very logical with these situations, but honestly, I can't see where the hijab could hinder teaching. The veil, yes, (in certain circumstances), as I've already stated in the other thread, but, I can't think of one reason why a teacher couldn't wear hijab.

Thanks,
Hana
Reply

S_87
10-15-2006, 07:22 PM
:sl:
whyd they do what they did to the british airways woman though? i think they did that on purpose :mad: who cares if a person wears a cross?
Reply

S_87
10-15-2006, 07:23 PM
:sl:

what im getting really angry about is these non muslims giving their opinion and telling us what it says in islam.
*theres nowhere that says the veil is necessary*
that gets me real arghhhhhhhhhh
what do they know :rant:
Reply

*Hana*
10-15-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally Posted by amani
:sl:

what im getting really angry about is these non muslims giving their opinion and telling us what it says in islam.
*theres nowhere that says the veil is necessary*
that gets me real arghhhhhhhhhh
what do they know :rant:
Salam Alaikum:

Yeah, sis, I agree. THAT really irks me. The next time I'm in a plane I'll go tell the pilot how he should be doing his job and tell him how to fly it!! :rant: It's the same difference. :heated:

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

*Hana*
10-15-2006, 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by amani
:sl:
whyd they do what they did to the british airways woman though? i think they did that on purpose :mad: who cares if a person wears a cross?
Salam Alaikum:

Yeah, sis, that sounds a bit weird to me too. People are carrying this stuff way too far. Just leave people alone to practice their faith. As long as it's not causing injury to anyone, just leave them be. :heated:

So crazy,

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

- Qatada -
10-15-2006, 08:23 PM
:wasalamex


You know how the pagan arab's said to the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) that "if we follow your religion for a day, will you follow ours?" -

The same way, their trying to put forward the idea that "if we tell other faiths to give up their religios symbol - you will have to do it too." Religion is something they can play around with, whereas we know that we're upon the truth.



They know that islaam is the truth, and giving up a small necklace with a cross on, is easier than giving up a hijaab - which is waajib upon the muslim woman. They feel they have to justify what they say by using double standards.


But we know that at the end of the day - it is a test from Allaah Almighty. And none of this happen's, except by the will of Allaah. We should stay firm insha'Allaah, because who give's us rizq (provisions)? Is it anyone besides Allaah? Who raises some, and put's down others?


Who will we all return to? It is only Allaah, the Lord of the heaven's and the earth. He is our Protector, He is the One we turn to for help. He is the One who will judge between us, when there will be no authority, except with Him the Glorious, Exalted is He.



Allaah Almighty know's best.



:salamext:
Reply

*Hana*
10-15-2006, 08:25 PM
Salam Alaikum,

You're absolutely right brother.

Jazak Allah Khair,

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

Al-Hanbali
10-15-2006, 10:06 PM
:sl:

Have a look a what Ms Aisha's got to say:


Aisha Azmi
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
10-15-2006, 10:11 PM
If people think it is a problem, what about blind children? They can't see anything but they have a brilliant education. Pathetic!
Reply

youngsister
10-15-2006, 10:19 PM
:sl: HELLO??? She said she takes it OFF while teaching so please dont bring that *It will effect the children education*. She simply wears it in front of men colleagues, why wasnt this a big deal before? Why did they bring the issue up with her now?.:w:
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
10-15-2006, 11:34 PM
Because they need something to make an issue out of...!
Reply

Hisbul_Aziz
10-15-2006, 11:38 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
:wasalamex


You know how the pagan arab's said to the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) that "if we follow your religion for a day, will you follow ours?" -

The same way, their trying to put forward the idea that "if we tell other faiths to give up their religios symbol - you will have to do it too." Religion is something they can play around with, whereas we know that we're upon the truth.



They know that islaam is the truth, and giving up a small necklace with a cross on, is easier than giving up a hijaab - which is waajib upon the muslim woman. They feel they have to justify what they say by using double standards.


But we know that at the end of the day - it is a test from Allaah Almighty. And none of this happen's, except by the will of Allaah. We should stay firm insha'Allaah, because who give's us rizq (provisions)? Is it anyone besides Allaah? Who raises some, and put's down others?


Who will we all return to? It is only Allaah, the Lord of the heaven's and the earth. He is our Protector, He is the One we turn to for help. He is the One who will judge between us, when there will be no authority, except with Him the Glorious, Exalted is He.



Allaah Almighty know's best.



:salamext:
So True :D
Reply

*Hana*
10-16-2006, 02:12 AM
Originally Posted by Tayyaba
If people think it is a problem, what about blind children? They can't see anything but they have a brilliant education. Pathetic!
Actually, sister, children born blind also develop stronger senses in other areas. They have adapated since birth to compensate for no sight. There is nothing wrong with a blind child's ability to learn, but they are taught somewhat differently. ie: learning colours. They can never learn real colour, but they can be taught to associate. A cottonball, for example, to associate the colour white, cold water for blue, hot water for red, etc.

But, when teaching children a second language, mouth, lip and tongue placement is very important for pronunciation. The same way a blind, deaf and mute person learns to speak. They feel for the different vibrations on the teachers throat, feels his/her lip movements and learns to imitate it by putting their hand on their own throats and lips.

No one is saying she shouldn't teach, I'm sure she's a fabulous teacher and a wonderful sister, mashallah, but it is a fact that learning another language does require seeing the words and letters spoken as well as hearing.

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

*Hana*
10-16-2006, 02:18 AM
Originally Posted by youngsister
:sl: HELLO??? She said she takes it OFF while teaching so please dont bring that *It will effect the children education*. She simply wears it in front of men colleagues, why wasnt this a big deal before? Why did they bring the issue up with her now?.:w:
Salam Alaikum sister:

People were commenting on the FIRST report of this incident. In the first report it said the children themselves were complaining because they were having difficulty because of the use of the veil. The FACT IS....IF she is wearing the veil it DOES effect the children's education! The school also said they had no problem with her wearing it outside of her classroom and in front of male colleagues. She said herself that she did not wear the veil during the interview where men were present, so it was obviously not an issue, because they didn't know she wore one. It became an issue when she wore it while teaching. IF she doesn't wear it while teaching, then there is obviously no problem. But, the complaints came from the children so you'd have to ask them what exactly their complaint was because there seems to be conflicting stories.

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-16-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally Posted by Tania
May be Salman Rushdie follows the same school of thoughts:) :?
I think this whole issue is due to the election, popularity, another way to gain votes.
I believe that the extremity of Salman Rushdie's situation was clearly brought about by a different degree of potential disagreement than only stating that belief that it is not always essential for a Muslim woman to wear full veil. Most Muslims will happily not tell you what the reality of the full teaching in respect of Hijab is unless you are within the Ummah, therefore it is necessary to expect that it is best that you not equate disputes over Hijab with the Salman Rushdie situation.

In Salman Rushdie's case, his surname is an unfortunate coincidence with the fact that he manifests a very untoward writing style in which he leaves open ended much which truly in Islam demands a closure.

Often, for example, I might write in a context that is not fully appropriate and about Islam in a manner that other Muslims might not find fully appropriate; but I would not leave my efforts to communicate so wedged open to fearing Allah as Salman Rushdie's writing can. I have only read a single short piece of his prose, and found it simply ending and exactly the worst place. Such is necessary to be disputed as having any thing to do with Islam. But I can tell that one day I was in public without being in full Hijab, and that is a crime to a totally different degree. The key to comprehending this essential difference is Gospel of Isa.

Actually I had in mind to come back into this thread to report that I have found my self able to conceive of any removal of my own Hijab in public only in one instance, and that is when my ears are wanting to hear better. But that is resolvable by putting the veil behind my ears temporarily, and in fact it is not such a bad thing to dampen the sounds of a big city.

The point is that there is a real issue in terms of intergration, but that the likes of Jack Straw are missing the point altogether; and that their approach is pointedly an assault upon Islamic belief in why Hijab is important. Yet when under such an assault, a truly acceptable Islamic approach can be to simply remove the veil. I usually have when speaking to my own counsellor, whom is Christian, for example.

However simply because a portion of the intention of Jack Straw, or of other persons he associates with, is to assault the public image of being Muslim; then it also becomes truly the more appropriate Islamic response to manifest the veil as an integral portion of a Muslim identity.

What about that! Now I have run my self into the absurdity of contemplating the likelyhood of being faced with a situation of wearing the veil to assert Muslim identity, while at the same time, upon occassion, (such as when confronted with persons motivated by the cause of furthering an anti-Islamic sentiment), I might remove Hijab, as an internal attitude, whilst sustaining wearing the veil. There are in fact many conceivable circumstances in which such is the only legal option within Shari'ah.

If I were Jack Straw I would want to become worried about the efforts he is making having the reverse effect to that he desires to acheive.

But I suspect that actually there are many more examples here in Australia, than could be sustained at present in England, of people finding themselves in that situation of need for a momentary removal of the full Hijab, whilst sustaining the identity of wearing full veil. This is clearly exemplified by the paradox of instances in which Muslims are questioned by police as though terrorists only because of wearing the veil; as though simply being Muslim qualifies a person as being a terrorist. When such is assumed of Muslims then such can only become what non-Muslims perceive of Muslims.

Assalamu Alaikum
Reply

Bittersteel
10-16-2006, 05:34 AM
maybe those kids were Islamophobes.

I want this situation to be contained within Europe.I hope my country doesn't ban it.
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-16-2006, 06:14 AM
Originally Posted by Ulysses

I take issue with the very concept that a woman should cover her body as a manifestation of her virtue, but then that reveals my bias. I believe there are boundaries to cultural relativity and we are exploring them.
I have removed most of the material Ulysses posted since Hana_Aku has responded so well in accord with my own feeling to the matter at the following places:

Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Peace Ulysses:

So, as a Canadian living in the Atlantic, I am well . . .

. . . Grrrrr, so frustrating.

Hana
and:

Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
How does a veil pose a threat or risk . . .

. . .(When I say "you", I'm using it in general terms, not to you in particular, so please don't be offended.)

Peace,
Hana

However I would like to add in response to Ulysses original post only a reply to the last paragraph quoted above.

Your bias is truly revealed Ulysses: and therefore I would find it improprieteous to engage in any sort of exploration of the boundaries of cultural relativity with you what so ever; in fact I am most certain in my self in Islam that any real culture has no relativity and is objectively imparted to us in Allah.


Originally Posted by Duhaa
A few days ago, my sister was walking back from college and yeah she wears a veil. Anyway, this man stops and says excuse me, I think you're really beautiful under that veil. She looked at him like he was a few cards shy of a full deck, I mean like this --->:uuh: :ooh:

Then he said no really, I think you must be beautiful and he smiled and walked off. :mmokay:

So what I was thinking after she told me was that d'you think that was Straw in disguise? :rollseyes

Then figure this one out:
I was sitting in class at uni. This man behind me goes to some other guy that he read somewhere or something that women wear the veil because they're scared of men. What a joke?! This man believed it and said that men must be the worst kind of creation, they must be evil and he said loads of other stuff that I cant remember, some of which I didnt understand because he was foreign and spoke his own language. Go figure....:offended:

That definately wasn't Straw but hey imagine some people thinking that.....:heated:
I am figuring out that the man at the class at uni is truly only so terrified of women that he hates any female; and is accustomed to projecting the majority of his hatred upon Muslims, so associates freely to any perceivable weakness in any Muslim woman. That he speaks ill of men is a testimony only to his actual fear of women. The poor fellow must have been raped by a prostitute or something equally bad. That is usually the case among men whom are very assertive of a radical feminist point of veiw.

However, the guy who is a few cards shy of the full deck is the more revealing example of an act of hatred of Muslims.

There is a bizarre fact at the centre of his assertion that I might be able to clarify. There happens to be a number of obsure and wrongful beliefs among persons whose inner affiliations are with actual nazism in respect of Muslims. These are: that a Muslim woman only covers her hair and face so as to save up massive quantities of vanity with which to avoid manfiesting belief in the true teaching of the grave; and that all Muslims engage in the genital aspect of wudu as a form of sado masochism. The bizzare nature of these facts speaks only to the reality that any person whom affiliates with nazism is truly quite some many cards short of the full deck. I have found some evidence that such persons actually made a massive experiment upon themselves in connection to the genital wudu to test its efficaciousness. But they all already then had an extreme STD, such that cold water caused actual pain to their genitals. That is why the manifest such perverse belief towards Muslims. Obtaining certainty of this knowledge was truly the most disgusting thing that ever had any necessity of occurring; and at such an expense of being taken my self to be a nazi, for some time, by other persons in my own community, such that they could not trust or believe me, that I now have little tolerance of being disputed with in these being factual. (or having, I hope now, previously been: having now been becoming gradually obsolete facts by being knowable)

There comes a point at which the only response is to find the situation we are all faced with totally absurd. Yet the lesson in what I am portraying is only that: when a person has fallen so far as to suppose it acceptable to offer implicitly perverse compliments to a very modest woman; then that person is a person falling into a pattern of habitually exposing their actual nature to the observance of belief in accountiblity. What I am stating is that those whom believe in such things as nazism also believe in extremes of violation of the Human physical body, and when only other persons whom are as wrong in their efforts to escape their account in Allah know of what is happening, then whom will be enabled to hold such persons accountible. There are very saddeningly many of such persons; and when they make any perverse compliment of any Muslim woman in a public setting, in which the woman is safe; we must regard their expression as a victory since by such expressions alone we will be enabled to ensure that they enter the fire of Jahannam. That is why I am able to conscionably express what I have learned: so that more Muslims are enabled to detect the signs of such perverse belief and hold it to account.

The issue of Hijab truly draws out the worst in any person in respect to their attitude to Islam; and to such a degree that we need no other battle ground in any place where Islamic education is available to any person whom is in need of.

wasalam
Reply

*Hana*
10-16-2006, 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by Emir Aziz
maybe those kids were Islamophobes.

I want this situation to be contained within Europe.I hope my country doesn't ban it.
Salam Alaikum:

She said herself most of the children were Muslim.

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

nishom
10-17-2006, 10:13 AM
If the government was to ban the veil, what would sisters on this forum who practice veiling do?

If it meant you losing your job, would you make compromises and wear jilbaab and hijaab instead. After all, its important that all Muslims contribute to the society they live in to change it for the better.
Reply

S_87
10-17-2006, 10:59 AM
:sl:

-i dont work and inshaAllah will never have to

- if they banned it may Allah help us but inshaAllah i will not take off my veil... dont think they will just yet though :?
Reply

nishom
10-17-2006, 11:14 AM
Personally, i think the banniong of the veil in schools and workplaces is likely to be banned in the UK ver soon.

However, i also respect that the government will not go to completely banning the practise of veiling.
Reply

amirah_87
10-17-2006, 12:10 PM
As Salaamu Alaykum,

You just give it another year or so and they'll start banning the whole hijaab!! :heated:
Reply

nishom
10-17-2006, 12:17 PM
In the aftermath of the controversial banning of the hijab in French schools, im sure the view of this governmant was that 'we live in a country which appreciates multiculturalism and recognises peoples rights.'

Wewll now the same debate is happenning here, and im afraid sister, that you may indeed be right in assuming so.
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-17-2006, 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by Duhaa
A few days ago, my sister was walking back from college and yeah she wears a veil. Anyway, this man stops and says excuse me, I think you're really beautiful under that veil. She looked at him like he was a few cards shy of a full deck, I mean like this --->:uuh: :ooh:

Then he said no really, I think you must be beautiful and he smiled and walked off. :mmokay:

So what I was thinking after she told me was that d'you think that was Straw in disguise? :rollseyes
I thought of a new reply to this situation. I would have said to any Australian stranger who approached me like that: "it's all right mate, its only that the headgear covers up me dandruff":D

But now I am wondering is there a context in which we can seriously discuss when and why any Muslim women might expose her face/hair/neck/hands: what are the immediate modern conditions in which we can accept that such can occur for a women and she sustain her integrity? I wonder are there Muslim women worrying about this; and I know that in the American context there is a long period of grace given every new convert to Islam before she is expected to cover her self. While I my self have been at odds with my family most usually because they are not recognising my work because of my Hijab; and that is enabling my sister to claim the results of my labour because she seeks to manifest her appearance alike to my own. The indigenous Australian tradition only requires Hijab for adults, so in the example of my own self in which I am very often assumed to be in wedlock or a prostitute, while I am yet a girl, it can be actually a danger to sustain my self consistently in Hijab. But I rarely remove it, only because of a full comprehension of the Law which causes that Hijab is necessary. So if my sister (a blood sister not a belief sister) wants to make out like she looks like my own past, then that is her problem ultimately. But the family trait of "tough" love is a bit much/

wasalam
Reply

Mujahidah4Allah
10-17-2006, 03:25 PM
:sl:

well i suppose we shouldnt get so wild of this issue but at the same time we can because my sister was telling me how a sister in liverpool got attacked and her niqaab was pulled off.. so it seems like the people against the niqaab are already taking action... how do we deal with this??

ma'salamah
Reply

nishom
10-17-2006, 03:44 PM
At the time of any adversity, the Muslim is the one who struggles with utmost perseverance, patience and endeavour, and does not compromise their faith and beliefs for the pleasure of those who wish that you could turn away from your religion.

Be strong all.
Reply

nishom
10-17-2006, 03:49 PM
Livingstone defends freedom to dress in accordance with ones religious conscience

source: islamonline.com.
accessed on 17/10/2006 at 16:47


Mayor issued a Press Release stressing that the freedom to dress in accordance with ones religious conscience is a “fundamental human right”.

Circulating rumours are suggesting that London’s Mayor Ken Livingstone has backed Commons Leader Jack Straw's stance over Muslim women’s full face veil.

But London Mayor only said that he wishes if Muslim women would give up the veil, but made it clear that he doesn’t mean imposing that on them and that the change should be suggested from within their community. He said the change would have to come over the "long term" from within the Muslim community, rather than through actions of "old white male politicians".

To clear this confusion, the office of the Mayor issued a Press Release on Saturday saying that freedom to dress in accordance with ones religious conscience is a fundamental human right.

Press Release:

Saturday, 14 October 2006

The Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said:

‘Britain today faces a concerted campaign by sections of the media and some politicians, fanned by fascist grouplets, aimed at sowing hatred against Muslims. This has now culminated in physical attacks, firebombings, and assaults on women. This constitutes an attack on civil and religious liberties including an attempt to suppress the right of persons of all faiths to dress in accordance with their religious convictions.

‘Whatever a person's view on the most suitable forms of dress they have no right to impose this on others - it is a fundamental human right that every person should be allowed to dress in accordance with their religious views, as dictated only by their individual conscience. This right had to be defended in the past for Sikhs and other communities and it must be today for Muslims or indeed any other community that faces such a challenge. It applies equally therefore to those who wish to wear crucifixes.

'The prosperity and cohesion of London as one of the most diverse cities in the world is inextricably linked to respect for these basic principles of freedom of individual choice'.
Reply

scentsofjannah
10-17-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by KAding
It seems perfectly reasonable to me and I agree with this comment. Do I support the principle behind the veil: no. Do I think it's nevertheless a personal choice: sure. I really don't understand why people are so upset about this, surely they didn't expect many Westerners would agree with the idea behind wearing a veil, right?

I think he is simply being honest.
couldn't agree more with you..
Reply

scentsofjannah
10-17-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally Posted by amani
:sl:

i think straw is a class a muppet as well as zionist with a hidden agenda. i HOPE those muslims who were keen on voting him in before sees some sense!
:sl:

I am not a fan of Straw..and i don't care much about the murky business thats politics..putting that aside..what he actually said made perfect sense i will go one step further even..it could be a health hazard..sometimes the cloth comes over the eyes etc...the timing and the manner of deliverance was wrong..and ofcourse the subsequent colonial-style lectures by politicians , weeks long hourly headlines about the veil and media hysteria , the reaction of certain muslims that ensued was uncalled for, boring and totally disgusting in my view..at a time when people are dying of hunger and wars people are concerned about this little piece of cloth on the faces of about 10,000 or less women in the whole of the United Kingdom!!!..

:w:
Reply

sameer
10-17-2006, 05:27 PM
Blair's concerns over face veils


Tony Blair has said the wearing of full face veils by Muslim women is a "mark of separation" and made some "outside the community feel uncomfortable".

The prime minister also backed Kirklees Council, which suspended classroom assistant Aishah Azmi for refusing to remove her full face veil at school.

But his intervention was criticised by Ms Azmi's lawyer, as the employment tribunal has yet to give a verdict.

He has threatened proceedings against Mr Blair if there is no retraction.

In his monthly press conference, Mr Blair said there was a need for a wider debate about community integration while allowing people to develop their "distinctive identity".


It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable
Tony Blair on full face veils

Mr Blair told reporters at his first news conference since MPs returned from their long summer break that a debate was needed on how the Muslim community integrates with British society.

"Difficult though these issues are, I think they have to be raised and confronted and dealt with," he said.

"And then, there's a second issue, which is about Islam itself and how Islam comes to terms with - and is comfortable with - the modern world."

Community balance


The debate was already going on in "every village, town and city" in the UK, as people sought a balance between "preserving a distinctive identity and integration."

When asked at the news conference if a Muslim woman wearing a veil could make a contribution to society, he replied: "That's a very difficult question.

"It is a mark of separation and that is why it makes other people from outside the community feel uncomfortable.

"No-one wants to say that people don't have the right to do it. That is to take it too far. But I think we need to confront this issue about how we integrate people properly into our society."

Tony Blair
Mr Blair made his comments during his monthly press conference

He also said he "fully supported" the way the authority dealt with Aishah Azmi at Headfield Church of England Junior School, in Dewsbury, by suspending her.

But her lawyer, Mr Whittingham, said his comments had "specifically and directly" interfered with the employment tribunal - which had yet to make a decision, which would inevitably be appealed against by the losing side.

He said Mr Blair's interference was a breach of the ministerial code, which requires ministers to uphold the administration of justice.

"We require the Prime Minister immediately to issue a qualification or a retraction," he wrote.

"If comments are not qualified or withdrawn then Mrs Azmi will consider bringing a complaint under the ministerial code and bringing injunction proceedings against the prime minister".

Full face veils became a matter of political debate two weeks ago when Jack Straw said he asked women to remove them, when they visited his office.

Government minister Phil Woolas has also angered some Muslim groups by calling for 23-year-old Ms Azmi to be sacked.

But her MP, Labour's Shahid Malik said ministers had been right to give their views and it had resulted in helpful debate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6058672.stm
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-17-2006, 08:04 PM
Originally Posted by Mujahidah4Allah
:sl:

well i suppose we shouldnt get so wild of this issue but at the same time we can because my sister was telling me how a sister in liverpool got attacked and her niqaab was pulled off.. so it seems like the people against the niqaab are already taking action... how do we deal with this??

ma'salamah
First I need to apologise that I have not yet received meaning for word niqaab.

Then that perhaps what a niqaab is could qualify adversely my other commentary.

My sincerest belief about a situation in which any woman is physically attacked such as that described is for a very stringent solution in the attire as well as behaviourally.

Can I explain with an example from within my own life. Once I was walking down a street in Oxford in around 1989, quite late at night, but there was other pedestrian traffic; and that was usual in that place. But suddenly there was only one other person whom was behind me and I felt very vulnerable. I considered why and immediately recognised that: I was wearing my hair out (this was before I reverted so I almost always had my hair long and uncovered); I was wearing a skirt; I had feminine style shoes on. None of these three facts were then common for me. I immediately began to tie my hair back and just at that moment was attacked from behind by the other (male) pedestrian. I let out a blood curdling scream and let my self prematurely fall down and got out from under him before he could react; then he ran away with me screaming at him never to do that again to any woman. But thereafter I very heavily considered all aspects of my clothing and what the reaction I received socially was attuned to each aspect. I had always been modest in my dress; but thereafter I noticed things like the fact that if a woman wears male style boots that she is safer. If a person has any aspect of their self dangling they are more likely to be mugged because of being vulnerable to. etc etc etc I have been observant enough that I can usually find safety in most extreme situations; though I must add that nobody has ever actually pulled a gun on me literally, but only threatened me with. I am the sort of person whom goes into a fast black out if I am in actual bodily danger that is inescapable and not of my own making.

So, all that told, my advice for any woman whom has experienced being attacked, or is afraid of such: is to mind all aspects of clothing so as that none of hinders the movement of her body in agility and speed. For example the dress of a Punjabi woman feels safer to wear than a Sari. But most often dressing in a way that could be taken for a male's dressing is the safest.

Modesty has many qualities. In one situation a modest dress might be only to blend in; while in another situation a modest dress might be to be different.

I hope this helps

wasalam
Reply

Kamilah
10-17-2006, 08:34 PM
What good is expected from the enemies of Islam?

whats more hurtful and worrying is our own fellow Muslims are doing to the ummah !
take a look at this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...924101,00.html
Reply

Ulysses
10-17-2006, 08:38 PM
This has been a very interesting discussion. I've learned a lot about Islamic views. Too many responses for me to respond to each of you individually, but a few overarching comments.

First, separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of many nation states. If Muslims living in such nation states cannot abide by this principle, then they really should ask themselves why it is they are living in such a nation state.

Second, the comment about blind children: blindness is considered a disability, i.e., people who are not able to see the faces and non-verbal communication of others are widely acknowledged as not having all the same abilities to communicate, perceive, and understand as people gifted with sight. If you're point is that, people can overcome disabilities and that their societies can accomodate their disabilities, and foster their development inspite of their disabilities, then your point is well taken. If your point is that, it is equally optimal for communication to occur in the absence of visual sense of facial expressions, your point is erroneous.

Third, the comments about attacks on women wearing niqab: anecdotes.

Fourth, a respectful reminder to all of you who are faithful Muslims. Not all of us share your beliefs, and I would ask that you respect our rights to do so. While I will gladly entertain your claims that your worldview is superior, that your religion is an entire way of life, and that all other worldviews will eventually be eliminated and replaced with yours, I would also point out to you that similar claims have been made by a wide variety of groups including: Catholic crusaders, Mongol conquerors, Roman Imperialists, European colonialists, Aztec sacrificers, Christian missionaries, Spanish inquisitors, Aryan supremacists, Klu Klux Klan lynchers, "communist" liberators, Soviet invaders, etc., etc., etc. I do not doubt that your worldview is truly fullfilling, beautiful and rewarding. However, is it also so precarious that it must be defined in terms of exclusive superiority to any other worldview, such as my own Buddhist view?
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
10-17-2006, 10:29 PM
You can have your views, no one is stopping you. Your talking about people in the past who had our view? Well, maybe you didnt know, Christians and people of other faiths have it too. Just because you urself havent heard it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-18-2006, 12:42 AM
Hi, and Stuff Nation States Ulysses, to be frank the legal phenomena has no meaning in Law without historical tracing back to before the seperation of Religion and State. We Muslims are required to understand the phenomena of Nation States as a necessary wrong doing of non-believers that will be always in process of fall.

Assalamu Alaikum Kamilah, thanks for letting me know what niqaab. I was not certain which word which between it and Jilbab.

One day I was at the Irish club with a really terrible person whom was stalking me and when he offered to buy me a drink and I was afraid to walk home alone I went there knowing that the Irish would recognise what was happening an let me make a getaway; which is exactly what happened. But curiously enough there that night was a woman whom has lived in Saudi Arabia and taught me to tie my Hijab around my face so only my eyes poke out. I like it better like that, but usually only can wear Hijab. One day I was wishing to live in a place where it is alright for a wife to be identified as well loved by how well covered she is: and since then I have seen one such Muslim wife with children and Husband at the local show getting off the ferris wheel, and two others nearer my home walking close to a major shopping centre. So I guess that here a complete Jilbab is as acceptable as anywhere; and I already am living in such a place as I wished for. My eyeballs get tired some days,

but really I came back into this thread to comment upon what I was writing earlier: that; dont chew know?; well, jou know dey didn fink dat DM's is only 4 bover boys when dey made em; my Hijab get DM; since dey ain't only 4 kickin ole grans wiv (but I nevermore wear em with what I wore 'em with in ol englan there)

Now here my point is: if Jack Straw wants Muslims to integrate really and truly he had wanna be considering all those of us who gunna get integrated in the Ummah, truly it ain't so far as all that from puddles at the Ribblehead Mushroom Festival to full Hijab and six times a day praying.

Did not that expression: 'as safe as houses', begin as a Muslim thing?

The point is only that there is already so much of the decency in every Nation that is of Islam, that integration can only reveal.

But that is enough of my past and my own story of clothing and what its meaning is and is not. What about the future? I had an idea that relates portionally to Hijab, and posted a thread but not many have read it yet, so I'll leave it at that will I:
http://www.islamicboard.com/educatio...education.html

Assalamu Alaikum rvq and thanking who has been patient enough to read the posts I make
Reply

Noora_z3
10-19-2006, 12:06 AM
Originally Posted by nishom
If it meant you losing your job, would you make compromises and wear jilbaab and hijaab instead. After all, its important that all Muslims contribute to the society they live in to change it for the better.
U see here prioritis come into play, should I work and "Contribute to the socity" which is not obligatory on me or should I remove my veil, which I personally belive is Compulsory on me?! I think u got the answer.

May Allah make our muslims socitis more religiouse and stronger.
Reply

Muezzin
10-19-2006, 08:33 AM
Originally Posted by Ulysses
Fourth, a respectful reminder to all of you who are faithful Muslims. Not all of us share your beliefs, and I would ask that you respect our rights to do so. While I will gladly entertain your claims that your worldview is superior, that your religion is an entire way of life, and that all other worldviews will eventually be eliminated and replaced with yours, I would also point out to you that similar claims have been made by a wide variety of groups including: Catholic crusaders, Mongol conquerors, Roman Imperialists, European colonialists, Aztec sacrificers, Christian missionaries, Spanish inquisitors, Aryan supremacists, Klu Klux Klan lynchers, "communist" liberators, Soviet invaders, etc., etc., etc. I do not doubt that your worldview is truly fullfilling, beautiful and rewarding. However, is it also so precarious that it must be defined in terms of exclusive superiority to any other worldview, such as my own Buddhist view?
Aw, you went through all those brutes and forgot to compare us to the Nazis? I'm hurt.
Reply

nishom
10-19-2006, 12:53 PM
UK’s PM asks Muslim women to take off veil
islamonline.com
accessed on 19/10/2006 at 13.52


British Prime Minister Tony Blair supported remarks made earlier by the leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, in which he criticised the Muslim women’s full-face veil, claiming it's a sign of separation.

Blair said that Britain's Muslims should be encouraged to integrate with mainstream society, falsely implying that the veil was an obstacle in the way of integration.

This is the first time the British Prime Minister speaks against the wearing of full- face veils by Muslim women. His remarks are expected to fuel the current heated debate in UK and across Western nations that have large Muslim communities over integration of Muslims in the West.

• Straw’s radical remarks

Blair’s remarks, which came two weeks after ignorant remarks made by the former foreign secretary and now leader of the House of Commons, Mr. Straw, in which he said that Muslim women visiting his office should remove their veils, will also intensify the current tension in UK and the debate over Muslims’ ties to the rest of the British community and the government.

Straw’s radical remarks set off an argument about whether Muslims have become the latest target of racial discrimination in the West.

Blair furthermore defended the case involving the suspension of the Muslim teaching assistant for refusing to take off her veil.

The British PM said that the local education authority handling the case Aishah Azmi, who was suspended from her job at Headfield Church of England junior school in Dewsbury, has the right to decide whether the veil interfered with her ability to do her job.

But Azmi affirmed that the children "never complained," and that she was willing to take the veil off during the lessons, but not in front of any male colleagues.

"The veil is really important to all Muslim women who choose to wear it. Our religion compels us to wear it because it's in the Qur’an," she said.

• Alienating Muslims

British Muslims say recent remarks by the British Prime Minister as well as other officials over the Muslim women’ veils and integration risk alienating them.

The fact that the government repeated same ignorant remarks made by other officials on the issue amount to vilification, Muslims say.

"There is a progressive attack by the government on British Muslims," said Mohammed Naseem, 82, chairman of the Central Mosque in Birmingham.

Birmingham mosque was founded in the late 1960s after migrant workers tuned the city into one of Britain's most ethnically diverse.

"Every day one thing or another crops up, whether it's the veil, faith schools or national holidays. There is a campaign of vilification, I don't know what will be next," he added.

"I wear the niqab for God not for a man, whether it's Jack Straw or my ex-husband," Reuters quoted Khadija Kamram as saying.

"In fact I only put it on after my divorce papers came through. People stare at me for wearing the veil, but I don't let it bother me," she told Reuters.
Reply

S_87
10-19-2006, 02:02 PM
:sl:

arghhhhhhhh whats it to any of them :rant:
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-19-2006, 06:28 PM
Originally Posted by Ulysses
Fourth, a respectful reminder to all of you who are faithful Muslims. Not all of us share your beliefs, . . . . . . Aryan supremacists, . . . . . ., "communist" liberators, Soviet invaders, etc., . . . . . . However, is it also so precarious that it must be defined in terms of exclusive superiority to any other worldview, such as my own Buddhist view?
Although my first reaction to your post was to assault the argument about Nations and Religion vs state, I like you post. Your comments are in general more intelligent that most who are new to accessing Islam.

I have here, in how I edited the quote, drawn an analogy to make a point that I hope will not be lost on you Ulysses. Are the Aryan supremacists only these days conscious of the liberation/invasion debarcles or were they, as I suspect, always so?

However my main point is sad. As for precarious: PLEASE can you read the major ahadith of Prophesy before so accusing? Yes we are in a "superior" FIELD OF REFERENCE, and one in which the terror of reality is also requiring of a far superior balance to sustain living.

Originally Posted by Muezzin
Aw, you went through all those brutes and forgot to compare us to the Nazis? I'm hurt.

Good point! De nazis dees days are definitely not all Aryan, or even trying to be. (dey was finking to de future and Jannah via a future look into de Hare Krishnas I bliev: and dat is why de theosophists promote de baddies of Hindu and were'd ignorant of Islamic worth in the same cause as de goodies of Hin')

But it all works out alright since I decided to become a nazis meself and to portray nazism as Australian (as well as german) National Socialism! weis all 'borigines dees days all de nazis an us.

But gee dat took sum catching one neo-nazi type among de Hare's; and all is well as ends well via The Elephants Surah! but dats in another fred. try http://www.loadislam...............the fred in cyber counselling about too weird


And as for Veils I had another idea. More and more and more Veil ideas gets more and more veiled and the more and more they accuse . . .:happy: :offended: :muslimah: :muslimah: an'salam
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-19-2006, 06:31 PM
an here 'd newer even idea: it is a plot to fade the colouration of red heads orange hair and that is why Jack Straw is so opposed to

?
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-19-2006, 06:40 PM
Waaa I made an edit that disappeared into cyber space with the following data in it:

about that of why red heads in Hijab is a funny thing

orange hairs fade as well as go white one by one and veil speeds that up
also

how many red heads wear Hijab?
and also

why can't red heads get blend into the crowd veil?

but then, since red heads in Veil is a clear winner in the "WHY" department: then why should Jack Straw want to integrate?

wasalam
Reply

nishom
10-20-2006, 10:15 AM
MP tells veil woman 'let it go'

bbc.co.uk
accessed on 20/10/2006 at 11.14

Aishah Azmi said she would appeal against the tribunal ruling
A Muslim teaching assistant suspended for wearing a full-face veil has been urged by her MP to give up her fight.
Aishah Azmi lost her employment tribunal case for discrimination and harassment, but was awarded damages for victimisation by Kirklees Council.

Her legal representative said they will take the case to "a higher court".

But Dewsbury Labour MP Shahid Malik told the BBC: "I would appeal to Mrs Azmi now just to let this thing go. There is no real support for it."

It comes as Conservative leader David Cameron warned politicians to consider the effects before "piling" into the row on women wearing full-face veils.

Mr Cameron said he was concerned British Muslims were feeling "slightly targeted" on the issue.



Mrs Azmi was suspended from Headfield Church of England Junior School, in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

I think there is a danger of politicians piling in to have their tenpence-worth

Nick Whittingham, of Kirklees Law Centre which is representing Mrs Azmi, said: "This is a new area of law in terms of religious belief discrimination.

"It's untested so we need to be taking that to a higher court."

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme they would look particularly at whether the case fell into an area of direct or indirect discrimination.

"What we are trying to say is that she can do her job perfectly even if she is wearing a veil," he said.

But Mr Malik told BBC Look North the tribunal ruling was "absolutely spot on".


Shahid Malik said the issue had "little support"

"I have got Muslim parents in my constituency who have said that they wouldn't send their children to a school where the teachers wore veils while they were teaching.

"I just think there is very little support for this, she is very isolated and it would be healthy all round if she just let it go and just accept the tribunal result," he told BBC Radio Leeds.


Her case fuelled the debate on full-face veils, originally sparked when Commons leader Jack Straw said he asked Muslim women to remove veils when they visited his constituency advice surgeries.

Prime minister Tony Blair also added his voice to the debate saying the full-veil was a "mark of separation".

But David Cameron told ITV1's Frost Tonight: "I think there is a danger of politicians piling in to have their tenpence-worth and really they have to ask themselves whether this is having an overall good effect or not."

Mr Cameron said that in cases like Mrs Azmi's, it should be up to the school and local authority to make their own judgement.

The chair of social and family affairs at the Muslim Council of Britain, Reefat Drabu, said the veil was not obligatory.

She said Mrs Azmi's stance was "exacerbating the misunderstanding" of Islam, and making things harder for Muslim communities in Britain.

"She does have a responsibility of what's happening to the rest of the Muslims who are living in the country."
Reply

bint_muhammed
10-20-2006, 11:34 AM
i think she was being stupid, why wear a veil in front of kids? i dont agree with what she did, what was she trying to make?
Reply

sameer
10-20-2006, 01:25 PM
is there a possiblity that some adult can enter the classroom unexpectedly and caught her without the veil? Then she is justified. Would u take of ure hijab in a class room that anyone can enter to?
Reply

*Hana*
10-20-2006, 02:26 PM
Originally Posted by sameer
is there a possiblity that some adult can enter the classroom unexpectedly and caught her without the veil? Then she is justified. Would u take of ure hijab in a class room that anyone can enter to?
Salam Alaikum brother:

The difference is that the Hijab does not hinder the 2nd language learning process. So, no, there would be no need to remove my hijab in the classroom.

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

sameer
10-20-2006, 02:37 PM
^^ yes but she would be viewing her viel as part of her Hijab - hence her taking of her veil would equate to u taking of ure hijab.
Reply

S_87
10-20-2006, 02:41 PM
:sl:

again i stress she wasnt teaching them a second language...asians round here speak whack english anyhow

i hope shell drop it now. its just keeping the issue in top news
Reply

bint_muhammed
10-20-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally Posted by sameer
^^ yes but she would be viewing her viel as part of her Hijab - hence her taking of her veil would equate to u taking of ure hijab.
when she went for her interview she didnt find it important to keep it on. i know she was doing it for islamic purposes but the thing is she wasnt being wise about it.
Reply

sameer
10-20-2006, 06:25 PM
yeah i knwo abou tthat part...but maybe the sister has tried to improve on her iman? i dunno

but i was just making the point that the classroom is a valid place to wear the hijab or veil beacuse it is still a place where a male can come in unexpectedly.

What i cant understand is, if ure employer tells u to take of ure hijab, how would u react? and Im sure everyone else on the board would be on ure side. The same goes for the sister, if she regards the veil as part of her hijab and is comulsory...then telling her to take it off is like tellling u to take of ure hijab.
Reply

~Stranger~
10-20-2006, 06:50 PM
:sl:
the thing is she wasnt being wise about it.
excuse me?? isnt that called GHEEBAH?? and is supposed to be HARAM in islam??

she did something that many of u wont dare to do. u dont know why she did it so u have no right to say such thing about her.

subhanAllah, how do we expect non muslims to respect us when we dont respect and support our own brothers and sisters?? the prophet said u should always help ur brother whether he is right or wrong- if hes wrong u (try to) fix it, not backbite him

that sister needs our help and support.
:w:
Reply

bint_muhammed
10-20-2006, 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by ~Stranger~
:sl:


excuse me?? isnt that called GHEEBAH?? and is supposed to be HARAM in islam??

she did something that many of u wont dare to do. u dont know why she did it so u have no right to say such thing about her.

subhanAllah, how do we expect non muslims to respect us when we dont respect and support our own brothers and sisters?? the prophet said u should always help ur brother whether he is right or wrong- if hes wrong u (try to) fix it, not backbite him

that sister needs our help and support.
:w:

no! thats not backbiting (i wasnt intending to be nasty and if i came acroos like i was, i'm sorry and i hope allah swt forgives me) !!!!!! i'm sorry if one of our brother or sisters was gonna commit a crime i suppose we all have to support them! :rollseyes
Reply

bint_muhammed
10-20-2006, 09:45 PM
Originally Posted by sameer
yeah i knwo abou tthat part...but maybe the sister has tried to improve on her iman? i dunno

but i was just making the point that the classroom is a valid place to wear the hijab or veil beacuse it is still a place where a male can come in unexpectedly.

What i cant understand is, if ure employer tells u to take of ure hijab, how would u react? and Im sure everyone else on the board would be on ure side. The same goes for the sister, if she regards the veil as part of her hijab and is comulsory...then telling her to take it off is like tellling u to take of ure hijab.
if my employer askked me to remove my hijab i would have a problem with especially if he'd seen me in the interview with it on and didnt mention it!
Reply

~Stranger~
10-20-2006, 10:14 PM
i'm sorry if one of our brother or sisters was gonna commit a crime i suppose we all have to support them!
:sl:

[S]if hes wrong u (try to) fix it[/S]
:rolleyes:

(i wasnt intending to be nasty and if i came acroos like i was, i'm sorry and i hope allah swt forgives me)
we should be careful with we say hun. u wouldnt like someone saying that about u now, would u??

:w:
Reply

Dahir
10-21-2006, 12:03 AM
CNN

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A British tribunal ruled on Thursday that a Muslim teaching assistant had not been discriminated against when the school where she worked asked her to remove her veil.

The case of 24-year-old Aishah Azmi against Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire, northern England, has attracted nationwide interest after former foreign minister Jack Straw said Muslim women who wore full veils made community relations difficult.

Straw had said he would prefer women not to wear veils because they acted as a "visible statement of separation and difference."

The veiled Azmi told reporters at a news conference afterwards that her veil, which leaves just the eyes exposed, had never hindered her teaching.

"The veil does not cause a barrier. I can teach perfectly well with the veil on," she said, adding that veiled women were not "aliens".

The publicity surrounding the case has highlighted the sensitive issue of separation among Britain's 1.8 million Muslims.

A growing conviction the government has to tackle segregation in the wake of last year's suicide bomb attacks by British Islamists which killed 52 in London has led ministers to broach a topic once considered too delicate to raise.

Even Prime Minister Tony Blair stepped into the highly charged debate about Muslim women's use of the full veil this week, calling it a "mark of separation".

Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury had said Azmi should remove the veil in order to communicate. When she refused, they suspended her.

On Thursday, a Kirklees Council official said Azmi's claims of direct and indirect discrimination and of harassment had been thrown out by the employment tribunal.

But, Azmi was awarded 1,100 pounds for victimization and because the council failed to follow grievance procedures correctly.

Azmi's lawyer said they intend to appeal and possibly take the case to the European Court of Justice.
Reply

scentsofjannah
10-21-2006, 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Aw, you went through all those brutes and forgot to compare us to the Nazis? I'm hurt.
i found Ulyses comments offensive too..he/she might as well go on and add the nazis to the never ending list...but hey who cares!
Reply

scentsofjannah
10-21-2006, 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by Kamilah
What good is expected from the enemies of Islam?

whats more hurtful and worrying is our own fellow Muslims are doing to the ummah !
take a look at this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/S...924101,00.html
i have read it sister whats wrong with it? i agree with all of her comments regarding the niqab...i know i would be greatly dismayed if any of my sisters or friends wore it...and i would do all that i could to talk them out of it.
Reply

David Gould
10-22-2006, 12:33 AM
I fear the government are pursuing a confrontational course of action to deliberately obstruct our view of the horrendous war crimes they have been party to in Iraq, Gaza and Lebenon.

But the world is waking up to these dangerous people and we will rid ourselves of them soon.

For the record do you see the gov asking Salvation Army people to change their uniform
or priests to remove their dog collar
on nuns their habits
No.
There needs to be more respect shown by Whitehall to people of diverse religion, race and colour. That way only leads to tolerance and friendships.
Reply

*noor
10-22-2006, 12:42 AM
Originally Posted by David Gould
There needs to be more respect shown by Whitehall to people of diverse religion, race and colour. That way only leads to tolerance and friendships.
So true!! I'd rep you but i've given too much reputation in the past 24 hours.
Reply

Sum-Muslim-Gal
10-22-2006, 12:53 AM
:sl;

can i mention somthing here its tooo funny...

my sister n ma cousin wear niqab[veil]...they went shopping today...ma sister had a mop in her hand waiting outside the store...this old lady screams at her saying*stop attackng me*..hahahah...it was soo funny at the time..even though i wasnt there...

but ive gotta say with the veil business on the media...the looks/feelings/comments are soo bad especially if a family memeber wearing one...

MAY ALLAY[swt] PROTECT THE MUSLIM UMMAH..[amin]

:w:
Reply

Muezzin
10-22-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by David Gould
I fear the government are pursuing a confrontational course of action to deliberately obstruct our view of the horrendous war crimes they have been party to in Iraq, Gaza and Lebenon.
So do I, but because I'm Muslim people just dismiss me as paranoid and neurotic if I ever say it. :p :)

Darfurians are being massacred, US troops and Iraqi civilians are dying, British troops are being slaughtered in Afghanistan, North Korea's president is proving just how crazy he really is and all anyone cares about is a piece of cloth!
Reply

David Gould
10-22-2006, 03:07 PM
Muezzin, does this not demonstrate why we of diverse religions must speak with one voice when we see the criminal acts being perpetrated by our governments. This is not the time for separatism but for joint action, together we are stronger.
Reply

Kamilah
10-23-2006, 12:35 AM
Originally Posted by scentsofjannah
i have read it sister whats wrong with it? i agree with all of her comments regarding the niqab...i know i would be greatly dismayed if any of my sisters or friends wore it...and i would do all that i could to talk them out of it.
I havent read any of your other comments but going off what you have replied to my post I would just like to say....

why would you talk someone out of carrying out an act of piety? sister dont regard and deed as insignificant, and dont discourage people from doing good...you may be accountable for that on the day of judgement.

have you ever met practising sisters who observe the full Purdah? Masha'Allah they are preserving themselves they are emulating the Ummahat-Ul-Mumineen, if they the superior creation observed the niqaab then why shoudnt we?

be wary of what you say sister, Allah is ever watchful.
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-23-2006, 05:04 AM
Originally Posted by Dahir
Whoa!

Who do they think they are?

I vote that we should all organise to manifest that when ever there are women being made to remove their veil that we provide a alternative collectively.

Just today this happened to me: I was with my 14 yr old son (yahoo a victory that his dad let him see me for the end of Ramadan!) whom has not been with me in a public place before today since mid 2003. I had two scarves on, one over only my hair and the other over my neck also. When we were saying goodbye he was meeting with a few friends, and before going into that place I took off the top scarf only so as not to alienate his friends or himself in his friend company, and knowing how a scarf can cause, especially teenage boys, to be embarrassed into disregarding a female. The underneath scarf was more common looking and the one on top white. We had just come from Masjid together. First when I took off my over veil I saw another Muslim woman in the distance with a white veil, and looking very white. I hesitated wondering if I had manifested wrongly, and then another Muslim woman walked close by and heading toward me instead of away from, who was only wearing a veil covering her hair, rather than also her neck. My son and I had been discussing the internal regard for Hijab before hand, and so the whole situation was illustrative for himself, which is what my intention had been. So as that he could compare differences in external manfiestation as expressions of the same internal self regard.

So now I am thinking. What else could the teaching assistant wear to illustrate the internal attitude of Hijab? And can every British Muslim, in veil or out of veil, manifest wearing the same thing. Like a cloth that wraps her hair tighter, and a badge that says I am a Muslim. I always also wear a red and blue coloured glass bead that is representative of Hijab in the African tradition.

wasalam
Reply

jzcasejz
10-24-2006, 06:01 PM
Straw Said One Thing...That Started All This :cry:
Now U Got All Sortsa Stuff Happening i.e Veils Being Literally Pulled Off :grumbling :enough!:
Reply

wilberhum
10-24-2006, 06:05 PM
Protection for Italy veil row MP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6078392.stm
An Italian politician will be given police protection following comments she made about the Islamic veil on television.
The MP, Daniela Santanche, from the right wing National Alliance, said the veil was not required by the Koran.
She was labelled an infidel by an imam appearing on the same programme and there are now fears for her safety.
Daniela Santanche recently published a critical book on living conditions for Muslim women called Woman Denied.
She is known for her forthright comments.
Reply

Duhaa
10-24-2006, 06:59 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
Protection for Italy veil row MP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6078392.stm
An Italian politician will be given police protection following comments she made about the Islamic veil on television.
The MP, Daniela Santanche, from the right wing National Alliance, said the veil was not required by the Koran.
She was labelled an infidel by an imam appearing on the same programme and there are now fears for her safety.
Daniela Santanche recently published a critical book on living conditions for Muslim women called Woman Denied.
She is known for her forthright comments.

Talking from experience?

..............Naa I don't think so.

But on topic, eveyone's entitled to their opinion as is this MP, and people should understand that two wrongs don't make a right. i.e assuming that the woman is wrong in what she's saying doesn't mean people should go after her to silence her.

Again as so many of you have said, the media is blowing thing's out of proportion concerning the veil. I know a threat to someone's life is nothing to belittle but the whole issue of the veil is something that could have been avoided if the media hadn't got wind if it, so to speak......
Reply

Keltoi
10-24-2006, 07:52 PM
I still don't see the issue with the veil, besides obvious situations requiring a photo ID. This is probably being blown out of proportion by both sides of the issue.
Reply

Mohsin
10-24-2006, 10:52 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
I still don't see the issue with the veil, besides obvious situations requiring a photo ID. This is probably being blown out of proportion by both sides of the issue.
What do u mean by both sides of the issue? If you eman its being blown out by both muslims and non-muslims, then i agree with you on the part of non-muslims. Jack straw was refrring to a woman in his surgery, and it escalates into your tom dick and harry going on programmes like question time and saying the veil should be completely banned.

As you said, apart from things like passport IDs and driving licences, the veil is not going to harm anyone. Out of 60 odd million people in UK, only 200,000 women wear the niqaab! Why arent people out there discussing more serious issues such as rape, teenage pregnancies, domestic violence, rather than women, who generally keep themselves to themselves, who wear veils.

That is the reason why muslims have reacted to the media coverage this way.
Reply

Keltoi
10-25-2006, 03:52 AM
Originally Posted by Mohsin
What do u mean by both sides of the issue? If you eman its being blown out by both muslims and non-muslims, then i agree with you on the part of non-muslims. Jack straw was refrring to a woman in his surgery, and it escalates into your tom dick and harry going on programmes like question time and saying the veil should be completely banned.

As you said, apart from things like passport IDs and driving licences, the veil is not going to harm anyone. Out of 60 odd million people in UK, only 200,000 women wear the niqaab! Why arent people out there discussing more serious issues such as rape, teenage pregnancies, domestic violence, rather than women, who generally keep themselves to themselves, who wear veils.

That is the reason why muslims have reacted to the media coverage this way.
I don't blame any Muslim for their reaction to this issue. I suppose I'm not taking it as seriously because this sort of situation hasn't happened in the U.S. There was one case of a Muslim woman refusing to take off her veil for a photo ID, but this case didn't find its way into American politics. I don't think Americans care if a person is wearing a veil, a hockey mask, or a severed donkey head as long as you don't take a parking spot from them. I suppose this is just a case where American society might actually be more tolerant than the friendly Brits.
Reply

Tania
10-25-2006, 05:24 AM
Originally Posted by Mohsin
Jack straw was refrring to a woman in his surgery.
The doctors cover their mouth during the surgery, in certain cases they are wearing even special glasses to protect their eyes.
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-25-2006, 11:19 PM
I had an idea for an integrationist excercise between Muslim Sisters and any group of non-Muslim women motivated to work in equitable account alongside.

Get the non-Muslim women to wear Hijab and go around to daily life locations of their own life and also a Muslim woman's life. But then also get the Muslim women to go through the same experience but with a doctors surgical mask on as well as Hijab, either that or a pirate eyepatch. It could give Muslims sisters a sense of the initial absurdity that women in the west are initially receptive to in the early manifestations of wearing Hijab.

Tony Blair and Jack Straw can eat that porrige. The simple idea of a group of sisters getting about Brisbane or London streets in surgical masks and eye patches at first struck me as so too neat, that I wrote a whole essay to fortify the idea, and posted it as a thread opening among these forums.

Integration a right not a fight!

The possibilities of squeezing out of the Hijab issue any and all residual resentment against Islam are endless and endlessly fortifiable. Every time the Tony Blairs suppose they have won because a Muslim woman took off her veil, they turn around to see her more resilient in the splendour of plain garb.

Why do they put themselves through it I wonder?

wasalam
Reply

Umar001
10-26-2006, 12:12 AM
In honesty I don't get it.

People say it stops the community from intergrating and so forth.

Fair enough, but what sort of intergrationg? One where a man speaks to a woman without need?

Because alot of Muslims wouldn't want that anyway.

I mean, honestly, the veil is for women not to be seen much by whom? Males, so if it's stopping this sort of 'intergration' then surely that is the purpose.

I mean as soon as you want the females to intergrate with other females then the veil wouldnt even be there because they don't have to keep it infront of women.

So theres no fus, if people think Muslim women should 'intergrate' with men more than theres no chance, i think.

But if they want them to intergrate with women, then the veil is no problem.

I mean, it seems this intergration business is just used and people think its the whole community, while the only intergration that is not happening because of the veil, is the coming together of the women with men. Which is something fundamental in Islam.

:?
Reply

Noora_z3
10-26-2006, 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah
In honesty I don't get it.

People say it stops the community from intergrating and so forth.

Fair enough, but what sort of intergrationg? One where a man speaks to a woman without need?

Because alot of Muslims wouldn't want that anyway.

I mean, honestly, the veil is for women not to be seen much by whom? Males, so if it's stopping this sort of 'intergration' then surely that is the purpose.

I mean as soon as you want the females to intergrate with other females then the veil wouldnt even be there because they don't have to keep it infront of women.

So theres no fus, if people think Muslim women should 'intergrate' with men more than theres no chance, i think.

But if they want them to intergrate with women, then the veil is no problem.

I mean, it seems this intergration business is just used and people think its the whole community, while the only intergration that is not happening because of the veil, is the coming together of the women with men. Which is something fundamental in Islam.

:?
Exactly!
Reply

Curaezipirid
10-27-2006, 03:16 AM
Alaykomuassalamu Warahmathallahi Warabarakathahai

Waram Noora_z3 and IsaAbdullah

I am in precise agreement with both of you, and you are far more astute in being able to pinpoint the agenda when it comes to the real regard we all must take for our Hijab.

I might have just won a war with my mother around mine this day; and there are clear signs that the even the kafir shaytan in this location are already commenced to fall into the alignment of Prophesy around Revelations and the Synagogue of Satan; Insha Allah,

The gog and magog crisis came to a head here with the pattern of now busted out into the open in our Indigenous cultural genetic memory. It is that one of those genetic switches has just been switched in our racial memories. But there were different parts of the Aboriginal community whom had different switches already turned on, in the neuro-chemistry of the pre-frontal cortex and what it is which we regard ourselves most accountible by.

Many had the postural switch on, but not the appearance switch. Already there are persons whom never yet wore the veil manifesting in their self projections as though they are in veil.

The gog and magog battle is cause through the impact of the Behemoth's black magic upon the cultural values of northern Asia. The Han dynasty of China exempliy the problem, along side that of nazi Germany, and curiously both had skyrocketing inflation, but in a reverse eventual effect. This is clear by the impact of world war two in China having reconciled into the one child family government policy as the resolution to the cultural revolution.

The problem occurs when there are racial features which can readily comply with accepting the need to traverse the fire of Jahannam, but which are not yet finding the way out of the Dajjal's trick. The pattern in China is of believing that a house is the symbol of all that is possible to be saved of ones entire self; while food that is consumed , and any other commodity, are symbols of the appearance of what we will take into the fire to burn. The difficulty is in respect of the accumulation of appearance of idols in respect of housing. But in general the Taoist backdrop of all Chinese cutlural belief insists that the Chinese must regard that only the oldest known examples of what is that self good enough to survive are able to be accepted in Jannah. Yet that causes battles over the older surviving housing, and in which the resolution occurs when houses burn and then the whole pattern is put together with the patterning of believing that through our own demise we are able to cause the demise of whom ever has falsely accused us. That is when the Torah becomes abrogated by Shari'ah. That is all that is really appropriate for this thread but the whom management of the cultural patterns which determine: a) what genetics exist; and b) what genetic codes are switched on at any given time; and also the history patterns in which such are being studied, is the science we require to inform the overall patterning of our cultural regard for one another so as to avoid The Dajjal.

The problem of not wanting Hijab is at its most extreme when intermarriage occurs between the genetics of far north east Asian origin and either black skin genetic pattern; if the genetic pattern prevalent as blonde hair and blue eyes is not first mixed with the Chinese type pattern. The melting pot ideology is the truth but it needs a specialised sequence. When the Chinese genetic mixes first with a black skin forming genetic it manifests desire for the gog and magog pattern. Even the proponents of the gog and magog pattern know that and themselves only intermarry with caucasian and innuit genetic so as to manifest that they can continue to try to steal the resemblence of Hijab by enforcing theft of "housing" from persons among whom intermarriage of a black skin genetic and the chinese genetic has occurred.

The intermarriage of the innuit and other American type genetics with a black skin genetic seems effective but only in the shade Allah can provide; whereas the sequence of the chinese marriage with innuit, then blone blue eyed, first encourages Hijab, and then intermarriage with one of the black skin genetics can occur more safely. I expect that the pattern of indigenous American intermarriage with African might be overly susceptible to the fear of gog and magog and so MUST BE PREVENTED from intermarriage with any of the three different east asian genetics unless the Islamic education process is already fully transpired, and Hijab is immutable. The red/orange hair genetic seems to be the resolution, and is existant among one of the east asian genetic groups, that indigenous to Japan (the hairy Japanese).

I hope that can help. Bear in mind about the English politicians that quite some many among are already with the red hair genetic: which indeed the gog and magog proponents fear.:offended:

Alaykomuassaalamu Warahmathallahi Warabarakathahai

ps Gog and Magog had wanna learn quick smart that if they try to steal the housing of a willing Muslim that they only loose any they ever had to Islam.

Also to accept that a real Muslim is willing and not their own, they need to know that when they did their own experiments with wudu their evidence was totally askew by cause of the STD transmission they attract to themself by their own belief once they are intermarried with blue eyed blondes. That is how they got the terrible notion that Hijab is hiding the imagery they promote from inside brothels. Not one true believing Muslim, even the shaytan hiding among clerics, would want to live a Human life if it were forced into what many were forced into by gog and magog's abuse of each other so as to cause each other's death. The key to it is realising which one between gog and magog was intending to accept their own death in having caused the other's death. Thereby it becomes evident which of the east asian region's tribal groups is on top, and which is accepting the lower position in meekness. What is the situation in New Zealand between the Maori and Polynesian in terms of who will accept Hijab more readily? It is so difficult to disentangle the mistakes of the past.

The basic ideology of the melting pot concern is that of needing to regard racial intermarriage only normal with whose Hijab is already self decent.

And the origin of the problem can be traced in this time, to Japanese organised crime utilising in their system of punishment, enforcing sexual intercourse with persons whom are downs syndrome: which the downs syndrome persons reguard as a great laugh since they only undertake such behaviour themselves in having perceived it a better option to the worst acts which the Japanese organised crime maffia are actualising, and are best never known while not in the fire.


HOWEVER even though gog and magog give evidence that desire for vanity is an instegative factor in rape and therefore to manifest self decent attire and conceal the appearance of biology: it is also that very many feminists also are very modest in their attire, is it not.

A group of just marched past me through the peak hour evening traffic with a police escort, I must confess that I poked my tongue out at them and was otherly rude also, but I can since I was marching in those sort of marches as a teenager, so know a thing or two that I would rather not know. The women chant: "yes means yes and no means no, what ever we say and where ever we go", and they have a clear point. A precise point. It is only a pity that so many of them say yes when they mean no. Sado-masichism is rife among the same group of women whom were marching, and all within that exact same gog and magog pattern. If anybody feels any fear in respect of that phenomenon from reading this post then there is one portion of a new post in a new thread in the Islamic Etiquettes forum that I began and which contains a portion of the explaination for the gog and magog phenomena.

Hijab is a necessity for combatting gog and magog, but if we are greedy in our Hijab then we can unravel ourselves in that battle. I might have joined into the march if I had been wearing a white or black Hijab, but the one I have on is an unfortunate purple and green, (to annoy Muslim clerics; perhaps?) (Insha Allah I will never dare) (Masha Allah this Hijab has saved my life, and SubhanAllah I get the cost in precise measure thankyou any consideration in respect of), but I just could not bear the resemblance of the colours I am in, to the feminist colouration.


Hijab for Victory!
Alaykomassaalamu Warahmathallahi Warabarakathahai (abbreviate to Waram is lingo way for indigenous Aussies who got that little of Arabic Thanking whom enabled among the English)
Reply

scentsofjannah
10-27-2006, 03:47 PM
Originally Posted by David Gould
Muezzin, does this not demonstrate why we of diverse religions must speak with one voice when we see the criminal acts being perpetrated by our governments. This is not the time for separatism but for joint action, together we are stronger.
you're wicked !! and i totally agree with you :)
Reply

scentsofjannah
10-27-2006, 03:53 PM
Originally Posted by Kamilah
I havent read any of your other comments but going off what you have replied to my post I would just like to say....

why would you talk someone out of carrying out an act of piety? sister dont regard and deed as insignificant, and dont discourage people from doing good...you may be accountable for that on the day of judgement.

have you ever met practising sisters who observe the full Purdah? Masha'Allah they are preserving themselves they are emulating the Ummahat-Ul-Mumineen, if they the superior creation observed the niqaab then why shoudnt we?

be wary of what you say sister, Allah is ever watchful.
:sl:

Do women who wear the veil get more rewards? if that was the case then we would all wear it..they just choose to wear it because certain personalities of the past wore it..its not a religious obligation and definitely not even a recommendation...the niqaab to me is extreme when worn by ordinary muslim women (not the Mothers of the Faithful may Allah be well pleased with them)
..and totally disastrous if worn in the west...babies get scared old people too you wouldnt even be able to carry out your Islamic duty to smile at people...

:w:
Reply

Kamilah
10-27-2006, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by scentsofjannah
:sl:

Do women who wear the veil get more rewards? if that was the case then we would all wear it..they just choose to wear it because certain personalities of the past wore it..its not a religious obligation and definitely not even a recommendation...the niqaab to me is extreme when worn by ordinary muslim women (not the Mothers of the Faithful may Allah be well pleased with them)
..and totally disastrous if worn in the west...babies get scared old people too you wouldnt even be able to carry out your Islamic duty to smile at people...

:w:

sister....you might not see the importance and wisdom in the Niqaab but there are many Muslimah's around the globe who will beg to differ with you on your above statement.

if it was a sin...would it have been adhered to by the Ummahatul Mumineen and Muslim women around the world to this very day? chastisty and modesty means a lot to the believing women...and Alhamdulillah in the current islamaphobic climate those that stick to their islamic principles...may Allah(swt) keep them preserved and grant them the Highest place in Jannah...Ameen.

we are not in anyway obligated to be stripped of our Islam by the kuffar

we came from Allah and to Allah(swt) we will return.

this is a really inspirational lecture, please take some time to listen to this sister.

http://download.yousendit.com/D220548670BDAE0C

also maybe speak to an Alimah ..she may be able explain things to you better.
Reply

Mohsin
10-27-2006, 08:11 PM
Originally Posted by scentsofjannah
:sl:

Do women who wear the veil get more rewards? if that was the case then we would all wear it..they just choose to wear it because certain personalities of the past wore it..its not a religious obligation and definitely not even a recommendation...the niqaab to me is extreme when worn by ordinary muslim women (not the Mothers of the Faithful may Allah be well pleased with them)
..and totally disastrous if worn in the west...babies get scared old people too you wouldnt even be able to carry out your Islamic duty to smile at people...

:w:
salam

I think you should be more careful when you post, not to start giving religious rulings etc. I think it is more or less unanimously agreed by scholars that it is more rewarding and better, that a woman wears a veil.

The scholars differ as to whether it is fard or not. You will find majority of scholars say it is not compulsary to wear a veil

By the way aren't the prophet's wives regarded as the role models for the women of the world. And since they wore a veil isn't that a good thing that should be practised??
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
10-27-2006, 09:19 PM
:sl:


When is it permissible for a woman to uncover her face?

Question:

We know that the most correct opinion among the scholars is that women should cover their faces, but there are many situations where women cannot cover their faces. Could you shed more light on this topic?

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

The most correct opinion, which is supported by evidence, is that it is obligatory to cover the face, therefore young women are forbidden to uncover their faces in front of non-mahram men in order to avoid any mischief, and they should certainly do so when there is fear of fitnah (temptation).

On this basis, the fuqaha’ stated that in certain situations, women are permitted to uncover their faces in front of non-mahram men when it is necessary to do so, and it is permitted for those men to look at them, provided that this do not go beyond the bounds of what is necessary, because what is permitted on the grounds of necessity should not be exaggerated.

These special situations may be summed up as follows:

I – Proposal of marriage

It is permitted for a woman to uncover her face and hands in front of a man who wants to propose to her, so that he may see them, without being alone with her and without touching her, because the face gives an indication of ugliness or beauty, and the hands give an indication of whether the body is slender or plump (which in turn gives an impression about fertility).

Abu’l-Faraj al-Maqdisi said: “The scholars do not differ as to the permissibility of looking at the face… the focal point of beauty, the place one looks at…”

Many ahaadeeth indicate that it is permissible for a man to look at the woman to whom he is proposing marriage. Among them are the following:

1.

Sahl ibn Sa’d (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “A woman came to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I came to give myself to you in marriage.’ So the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) looked at her, he raised his gaze and stared at her, then he lowered his head. When the woman saw that he had not made any decision, she sat down. Then a man from among his Companions stood up and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, if you don’t want to marry her, then marry her to me.’ …” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 7/19; Muslim, 4/143; al-Nisaa’i bi Sharh al-Suyooti, 6/113; al-Bayhaqi, 7/84)

2.

Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: “I was with the Prophet , and a man came to him and told him that he had married a woman of the Ansaar. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘Have you looked at her?’ He said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Go and look at her, for there is something in the eyes of the Ansaar.’” (Reported by Ahmad, 2/286, 299; Muslim, 4/142; al-Nisaa’i, 2/73).

3.

Jaabir (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When any one of you proposes marriage to a woman, if he can look at that which will encourage him to go ahead and marry her, let him do so.” (Reported by Abu Dawood and al-Haakim. Its isnaad is hasan, and there is corroborating evidence in the hadeeth of Muhammad ibn Muslimah. It was classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan and al-Haakim. It was also reported by Ahmad and Ibn Maajah, and by Ahmad and al-Bazzaar from the hadeeth of Abu Humayd. Fath al-Baari, 9/181).

Al-Zayla’i said: “It is not permissible for him to touch her face or hands – even if he feels that no desire will be aroused by doing so – because it is haraam and there is no need to do so.” In Durar al-Bihaar it says: “It is not permissible for the qaadi, the witnesses or the groom to touch her, even if they feel that no desire will be aroused by doing so, because there is no need for that.” (Radd al-Muhtaar ‘ala’l-Durr al-Mukhtaar, 5/237).

Ibn Qudaamah said: “It is not permitted for him to be alone with her because she is still forbidden for him, and only a look is permitted, therefore being alone with her remains haraam, because there is no guarantee that he will not do something haraam if he is alone with her. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “No man is alone with a [non-mahram] woman but the Shaytaan is the third one present with them.” He should not look at her in a lustful or suspicious manner. Ahmad said, according to a report narrated by Saalih: “He should look at the face, and he should not look in a lustful manner.”

The man may look at her repeatedly, checking her features, because the desired aim cannot be achieved in any other way.”

II – Business dealings

It is permitted for a woman to uncover her face and hands when buying or selling, and it is permitted for the vendor to see her face when he hands over the goods and asks for the money, provided that this will not lead to fitnah – otherwise it is forbidden.

Ibn Qudaamah said: “If a person deals with a woman when selling or renting, he may look at her face so he knows who she is, and may go back to her when the money is due (a guarantee of the price when the deal is finalized). It was reported that Ahmad said this was makrooh in the case of a young woman, but not in the case of an old woman, and in the case where there is fear of fitnah, or where there is no need for this business deal. But in cases where it is necessary, and there is no wrongful desire, then there is no harm in it.” (al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer ‘ala Matan al-Muqni’, 7/348 bi Haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma’a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/24).

Al-Dasooqi said: “ When testimony is given concerning a woman who wears niqaab (face-veil), she has to remove her niqaab. This applies in the case of marriage and other matters, such as selling, giving gifts, debts, power of attorney, and so on. This is the opinion favoured by our shaykh.” (Haashiyat al-Dasooqi ‘ala’l-Sharh al-Kabeer, 4/194).

III – Medical treatment

A woman is permitted to uncover the site of her illness whether it is on her face or elsewhere on her body, for a male doctor to treat her, on the condition that her husband or mahram is present, and if she cannot find a female doctor. It is less serious for her to be seen by a doctor of the same sex, and she should not be seen by a non-Muslim doctor if a Muslim doctor is available. Also, she should not uncover more than the site of the problem.

It is not permissible for the doctor to look at or touch more than is necessary, because the issue is one of necessity and should not be exaggerated.

Ibn Qudaamah said: “it is permissible for the doctor to look at whatever is necessary of her body, of her private parts and elsewhere, because there is a need for it to be uncovered.

It was reported that a boy who had stolen something was brought to ‘Uthmaan. He said, ‘Look at his groin (to see if he had pubic hair, which would indicate whether he had reached the age of puberty [and would therefore be considered to be a responsible adult] or not).’ They did not find any pubic hair, so they did not cut off his hand.” (Al-Mughni, 7/459; Ghidha’ al-Albaab, 1/97).

Ibn ‘Aabideen said: “He said in al-Jawharah: if the illness is in any part of her body apart from her private part, it is permitted (for the doctor) to look at it in order to treat it, because it is the matter of necessity. If the sickness is in her private part, he (the doctor) should teach a woman how to treat it. If there is nobody who can do that, and they fear that she may die or suffer unbearably, then they should cover all of her body except the site of the sickness, then a man may treat her, but he should avoid looking at her as much as he can, and look only at the site of the sickness that he is treating.” (Radd al-Muhtaar, 5/237. See also, al-Hidaayah al-‘Alaa’iyah, p. 245).

A similar ruling applies to one who is taking care of a sick person, even if it is someone of the opposite sex, when helping the patient with wudoo’ or istinja’ (washing the private parts after using the toilet). (See Ghidha’ al-Albaab, 1/97).

Muhammad Fu’aad said: “What indicates that it is permissible for a man to treat a woman – within the restrictions mentioned above – is the report narrated by Imaam al-Bukhaari with his isnaad from al-Rabee’ bint Mu’awwadh, who said: “We used to go out on military campaigns with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). We would bring water to the people and serve them, and bring the dead and wounded back to Madeenah.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 6/80, 10/136. Fath al-Baari. A similar report was narrated from Anas by Muslim, 5/196; Abu Dawood, 7/205 ma’a ‘Awn al-Ma’bood; and al-Tirmidhi, 5/301-302, who said this is hasan saheeh)

Al-Bukhaari included this hadeeth under the chapter heading Baab hal yudaawi’l-rajul ul-mar’ah wa’l-mar’at ul-rajul? (Chapter: can a man treat a woman or a woman a man?). (Fath al-Baari, 10/136).

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said: “The ruling that a man may treat a woman was derived from this by analogy; he (al-Bukhaari) did not confirm that, because it is possible that this referred to the time before hijaab was made obligatory, or that women used to take care of their husbands or mahrams on military campaigns. The ruling is that it is permissible for women to treat non-mahram men in cases of necessity, with as little looking and touching as possible.” (Fath al-Baari, 10/136)

IV – Testimony

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face when she is giving testimony in court, whether she is a witness in a case or is there to witness a deal, and it is permissible for the qaadi (judge) to look at her in order to know who she is and to protect the rights of all concerned.

Shaykh al-Dardeer said: “It is not permitted to give testimony against a woman in niqaab until she uncovers her face so that it may be known who she is and what she looks like.” (Al-Sharh al-Kabeer li’l- Shaykh al-Dardeer, 4/194)

Ibn Qudaamah said: “The witness may look at the face of the woman against whom he is testifying so that his testimony will speak about her in specific terms. Ahmad said: ‘He cannot testify against a woman unless he knows who she is.’” (Al-Mughni, 7/459; al-Sharh al-Kabeer ‘ala Matan al-Muqni’, 7/348, bi haamish al-Mughni; al-Hidaayah ma’a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

V – In court cases

It is permissible for a woman to uncover her face in front of a qaadi (judge) who is to rule either in her favour or against her, and in this situation he may look at her face in order to know who she is and for the sake of protecting people’s rights.

The same rules that apply to giving testimony or bearing witness also apply in court cases, because they serve the same purpose. (See Al-Durar al-Mukhtaar, 5/237; Al-Hadiyah al-‘Alaa’iyah, p. 244; Al-Hadiyah ma’a Takmilat Fath al-Qadeer, 10/26).

VI – In front of mature boys who feel no physical desire

It is permissible – according to one of the two reports – for a woman to show in front of a mature boy who feels no physical desire what she shows in front of her mahrams, because he has no interest in women, and it is permissible for him to see all that.

Shaykh Abu’l-Faraj al-Maqdisi said: “The mature boy who feels no physical desire may see parts of a woman’s body above the navel and below the knee, according to one of the two reports, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings): ‘… there is no sin on you or on them to move about, - attending (helping) you each other…’ [al-Noor 24:58] and ‘And when the children among you come to puberty, then let them (also) ask for permission, as those senior to them (in age)…’ [al-Noor 24:59]. This indicates that there is a differentiation between those who have reached puberty and those who have not.”

Abu ‘Abd-Allaah said: “Abu Tayyibah did cupping for the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he was a boy.”

It was also reported that he said: “He is like the ajnabi (stranger, i.e., non-mahram), because he is like one who has reached puberty in the matter of physical desires, and this means that hijaab is required and it is forbidden to look. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘… small children who have no sense of the shame of sex…’ [al-Noor 24:31]. As for small boys who are not mature, it is not necessary to cover in front of them at all.” (Al-Sharh al-Kabeer ‘ala Matan al-Muqni’, 7/349. See also Al-Mughni, 7/458 and Ghada’ al-Albaab, 1/97).

VII – The man who has no desire

It is permissible for a woman to show in front of a man who has no desire what she can show in front of her mahrams, because he has no interest in women, and he is allowed to see all of that. Ibn Qudaamah said: “Whoever no longer feels any desire, because of old age, impotence or incurable illness, or because he is a eunuch, … or a mukhannath (the effeminate man or a man who has female hormones) who feels no desire, the ruling that applies to such a man is the same as the ruling that applies to mahrams regarding looking at women, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘… or old male servants who lack vigour…’ [al-Noor 24:31], i.e., those who feel no desire for women.” Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “This is the one of whom women do not feel shy.” He also said: “This is the mukhannath who is impotent (i.e., cannot have an erection).”

It was reported that Mujaahid and Qutaadah said: “This is the one who has no interest in women, but if he is a mukhannath who feels desire and knows about women, then the rules that apply to others apply also to him, because ‘Aa’ishah said: ‘A mukhannath entered upon the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and they used to think that he was a man who felt no physical desires, but the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) entered upon us when this man was describing a woman and saying ‘When she comes in, she comes on four, and when she goes out, she goes on eight.’ The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘Do I not see that this man knows who is here? This one should never enter upon you.’ And he was kept away after that.” (Reported by Abu Dawood and others).

Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said: “The mukhannath is not only the one who is known to be promiscuous. The mukhannath is the one who looks so much like a woman physically that he resembles women in his softness, speech, appearance, accent and thinking. If he is like this, he would have no desire for women and he would not notice anything about them. This is one of those who have no interest in women who were permitted to enter upon women. Do you not see that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not prevent that mukhannath from entering upon his wives at first, but when he heard him describing the daughter of Ghaylaan and realized that he knew about women, he commanded that he should be kept away.” (Al-Mughni, 7/463; al-Sharh al-Kabeer ‘ala Matan al-Muqni’, 7/347-348).

IX – Old women who are past marriageable age

Old women who are past marriageable age may uncover their faces and what usually appears in front of non-mahram men, but it is still better for them to remain covered.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And as for women past child-bearing who do not expect wedlock, it is no sin on them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show their adornment. But to refrain (i.e., not to discard their outer clothing) is better for them…” [al-Noor 24:60]. Ibn Qudaamah said: “In the case of old women who are past marriageable age, there is nothing wrong if they show what ordinarily appears, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning), ‘And as for women past child-bearing who do not expect wedlock…’ [al-Noor 24:60].” Ibn ‘Abbaas said concerning the aayahs (interpretation of the meanings), “Tell the believing men to lower their gaze…” [al-Noor 24:30] and “Tell the believing women to lower their gaze…” [al-Noor 24:31]: “Old women who no longer expect to get married were exempted from this. The same exemption also applied to women who are deformed and are not desirable.” (Al-Mughni, 7/463; al-Sharh al-Kabeer ‘ala Matan al-Muqni’, 7/347-348).

X – Uncovering the face in front of kaafir women

The scholars have differed concerning how a Muslim woman should appear in front of kaafir women.

Ibn Qudaamah said: “The ruling concerning women dealing with women is the same as that concerning men dealing with men. There is no difference between Muslims, and no difference between a Muslim woman and a dhimmi (non-Muslim living under Muslim rule) woman, just as there is no difference between two Muslim men or between a Muslim man and a dhimmi man when it comes to seeing. Ahmad said: ‘Some people think that she should not take off her head covering in front of a Jewish or Christian woman. However, I think that she (a Jewish or Christian woman) should not see the private part (of a Muslim woman), or attend her when she gives birth (i.e., she should not be her midwife, because she will look at the most private part of her body when she gives birth – except in cases of necessity, as discussed above).’”

Another opinion was reported from Ahmad, according to which a Muslim woman should not remove her niqaab in front of a dhimmi woman, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… or their women …” [al-Noor 24:31]. But the first opinion is more correct, because kaafir women, Jewish and others, used to enter upon the wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and they did not wear hijaab in front of them nor were they commanded to do so. ‘Aa’ishah said that a Jewish woman used to come and talk to her, saying “May Allaah save you from the punishment of the grave,” and she [‘Aa’ishah] asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)… Asma’ said, “My mother came to me, and she had no desire to become Muslim. I asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), ‘Should I uphold the ties of kinship with her?’ and he said, ‘Yes.’”

Moreover, hijaab between men and women serves a purpose that is not an issue in the case of a Muslim woman and a dhimmi woman, just as it is not an issue in the case of a Muslim man and a dhimmi man. Hijaab is obligatory when there is a text stating that it is so or the obligation may be understood by analogy; in the case of a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim woman, there is neither text nor analogy.

The aayah “… or their women …” [al-Noor 24:31] could refer to all women. (Al-Mughni, 7/464; al-Sharh al-Kabeer ‘ala Matan al-Muqni’, 7/351 bi haamish al-Mughni).

Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maaliki said: “The correct view, in my opinion, is that this permissible in the case of all women, and that it appears with the pronoun ( -hinna = their) to match the rest of the aayah. This is the aayah of pronouns, where the pronoun -hinna appears twenty-five times; there is nothing else like it in the Qur’aan. So this word matches the others.” (Ahkaam al-Qur’aan, 3/326).

Al-Aloosi said: “Al-Fakhr al-Raazi suggested that the dhimmi woman is like the Muslim woman, and he said: “The correct opinion is that she (the dhimmi woman) is like the Muslim woman, and ‘their women’ means all women. The opinion of the salaf (early generations of Islam) should be understood on the basis that (covering in front of non-Muslim women) is preferable, but it is not obligatory.” Then he said: “This view is easier for people today, for Muslim woman can hardly observe hijaab in front of dhimmi women.” (Tafseer al-Aloosi, 19/143).

Muhammad Fu’aad said: “If this opinion was easier in their time, then no doubt it is more appropriate and easier in our own time, especially for those women who, because of circumstances beyond their control, find that they have to live in non-Muslim countries, where they mix with non-Muslim women and their lives are interwoven with theirs, to the extent that observing hijaab in front of them is fraught with difficulties. Truly, to Allaah we belong, and truly, to Him we shall return.”

XI – Hajj and ‘Umrah


Women must uncover their faces and hands when they enter ihraam for Hajj or ‘Umrah. At this time, they are forbidden to wear niqaab and gloves, because the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The woman who is in ihraam must not wear niqaab or gloves.”

If a woman needs to cover her face because men are passing close by her, or she is beautiful and is sure that men are looking at her, she should drop a part of head covering over her face, because of the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah in which she said, “Riders were passing by us, and we were in ihraam with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so when they came near, each of us would lower her jilbaab over her face, and when they went away we would uncover our faces again.”

Al-Juzayri said, reporting from them: “A woman may cover her face for a necessary reason, such as non-mahram men passing close by her, and the fact that (the cloth) will touch her face does not matter. This is to make it easy and alleviate hardship.” (Al-Fiqh ‘ala’l-Madhaahib al-Arba’ah, 1/645).

These are situations in which it is acceptable for a woman to uncover her face and hands, explained in detail by the fuqaha’ and scholars. But there is one other situation which deserves our attention, and that is when a Muslim woman is forced to uncover her face – what is the ruling in this case?

XII – Compulsion


Some oppressive regimes have instituted harsh laws which go against the religion of Islam and rebel against Allaah and His Messenger. These laws prevent Muslim women from wearing proper hijaab, and some of them even remove their niqaab by force and subject them to the worst type of oppression and persecution.

Women who wear niqaab have been subjected to harassment in certain European countries, where they have been subjected to harm, and Islam and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) have been slandered.

Therefore, when a woman is certain that she is likely to be subjected to unbearable harassment, she is permitted to uncover her face. It is better to follow a scholarly opinion which is less correct than to expose herself to trouble at the hands of evil men.

If a woman is permitted to uncover her face and hands in the situations described above, which do not involve force or harassment, then surely it is more likely that she is permitted to uncover them when she is faced with a threat to herself and her religion, especially when her niqaab may expose her to tormentors who may pull the hijaab from her head or subject her to worse abuse. In cases of necessity, things that are ordinarily forbidden are permitted, within the limits of what is strictly necessary, as the scholars have stated, but this should not lead one to take the matter of covering the face lightly. Each woman must evaluate the situation in which she is living and learn from her own experience and that of others, so that she will be sure of what is a case of real necessity, as opposed to her own whims and weaknesses.

Although women are permitted to uncover their faces and hands in the exceptional situations described above, they are not permitted to wear make-up and visible jewellery if they do so. It is forbidden for them to display these things in front of non-mahram men, according to all the fuqaha’, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… and not to show off their adornment…” [al-Noor 24:31], and because there is no need to do so. (Hijaab al-Muslimah bayna Intihaal wa Ta’weel al-Jaahileen, p. 239).

We ask Allaah to reform the Muslims. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad.

Hijaab al-Muslimah bayna Intihaal wa Ta’weel al-Jaahileen, p. 239

Source
Also see:

Conditions of Women's Niqab


33: 36. It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, He is indeed on a clearly wrong path.


24: 51. The answer of the believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, In order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: They say, "We Hear and we obey": it is such As these that will attain felicity.

52. It is such As obey Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah and do right, that will win (in the end),

:w:
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
10-27-2006, 09:22 PM
:sl:

Originally Posted by scentsofjannah

Do women who wear the veil get more rewards?
Why wouldnt they when they are following those who were righteous of those that came before them?! Why wouldnt they when they are doing something for the sake of Allah?! Why wouldnt they when they are following a verse of the Quran?!

33: 59. O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e.screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


The correct opinion is in my above post.

if that was the case then we would all wear it..they just choose to wear it because certain personalities of the past wore it..its not a religious obligation and definitely not even a recommendation...
You are mis-informed. The verse above is clear on the point that ALL muslim women are to wear the body veil not only the Mothers of the Believers.

the niqaab to me is extreme when worn by ordinary muslim women (not the Mothers of the Faithful may Allah be well pleased with them)
That is your opinion and the Islamic ruling is clear on the point of the body veil. This is Allah and His Messenger's decision.

33: 36. It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, He is indeed on a clearly wrong path.

24: 51. The answer of the believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, In order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: They say, "We Hear and we obey": it is such As these that will attain felicity.

52. It is such As obey Allah and His Messenger, and fear Allah and do right, that will win (in the end),



..and totally disastrous if worn in the west...babies get scared old people too you wouldnt even be able to carry out your Islamic duty to smile at people...
Since when was it allowed in Islam that sisters (or brothers) can smile at random "people" on the street?! Men (or women for the brothers) that are their non-mahrams?! What's next, winking at them? Dont you know that there are people in whose hearts is a disease? Why do you think the body veil is Wajib?!

33: 59. O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies (i.e.screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Smiling is when you are among the same gender. Why does Allah tell us to lower our gaze if we were to do it to the opposite gender?!

This is no more than an ideological attack from the West to strip our sisters of their morality and turn them into the immoral, shameless and lewd women of the West and the sad part is that some sisters are falling into this trap. May Allah protect us from this!

:w:
Reply

Curaezipirid
11-29-2006, 11:34 AM
I am thinking about Sheik Hilali's remarks about a woman without a veil being like uncovered meat to a cat.

I reckon that therein he has identified the reality. As much as no cat could deny the temptation, neither can the meat get up and cover it self. Who left the meat uncovered?

Surely, since men know what is and is not tempting to other men, better than a woman can know, Men are whom must cover her.

There is no point for a man in blaming women for being uncovered if he is not working towards causing that his own gaze falls only on covered women.

On women's part that which is the real wrong is to expose the body in vulnerablity so as to tempt sexual assault, or even gaze with mind to, but while in fact hoping that he will so assault her, and only so that she can blame him.

When all men have these facts straight in their minds then there might be no further need for full veil, and cover might preferably be accorded by weather than by people. That is, once men are able to look at any uncovered woman, and see only either her self acknowledged shame, or that she is only trying to entrap him into letting her hate him, then those women whom tempt look ugly enough that no man could fall to.

Meanwhile us sisters are better off in veil as Sheik Hilali pointed out.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-03-2008, 04:28 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!